Marriage right denied same-sex couples

Judy Olinick, Middlebury

Stephen Cable ("Traditional marriage chafes UVM," Feb. 10) is wrong about the burden of proof regarding same-sex marriage. The right to marry is a civil right and denying it to same-sex couples is discrimination by the state. The burden is on the state and on marriage rights opponents to demonstrate objectively that ending this discrimination would cause serious and specific harm. No such proof ever has been or can be shown.

As mentioned in our FAQ, there are already numerous limitations to who may or may not marry. In particular, consanguine couples (close relatives) are barred from matrimony, as well as polygamous marriages, specifically due to the risk which such marriages pose to the general public. Such restrictions to marriage are entirely constitutional, and have consistently endured close scrutiny under the constitutional lens of “discrimination.” If Ms. Olinick’s claim of discrimination against gays is followed to its logical conclusion, then all of these long-standing restrictions must also be viewed as “discrimination,” and should therefore be stricken as well. This would set the stage for legally sanctioned polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, brother/sister marriage, etc. We must wonder if such an outcome would be to Ms. Olinick’s liking. Further, we openly question the assertion that same-sex marriage is a civil right. As noted repeatedly on this site, all same-sex parented families are characterized by deprivation, and nearly all by rejection (see details). In short, state sanctioned same-sex marriage can exist only at the expense of children. No real civil rights can come at the expense of another person.

Ms. Olinick’s claim that “no such proof ever has been or can be shown” is a statement completely beyond the facts. As mentioned in our response to Dr. Moss, Prof. Weinstock, and Prof. Barbour, there is ample proof that same-sex marriage poses very real risk to children and society, and therefore the prohibition of which remains very much in the public interest (see details). 

Even if it were a fact that children "do best, on average" (whatever such a vague claim means) with married heterosexual parents, it would not follow that same-sex marriage should be banned. Parenting is only one aspect of marriage. Moreover, numerous sociological and psychological studies have shown that children thrive in a wide variety of family structures, as long as they are safe, secure, loved, responsibly cared for and encouraged.

Even if one parenting model could somehow be proven the "best," why should it be the only one? And how does denying a marriage license to same-sex parents benefit their children? No one suggests "replacing" so-called "traditional" marriage with same-sex marriage. Marriage rights advocates simply want equal marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. No defensible reason has ever been given for continued denial of these rights.

Ms. Olinick does not appear to understand the proper role of government in matters involving social institutions such as marriage, money, property ownership, etc. Government should never, through force of law, attempt to dilute social institutions toward the lowest denominator. In other words, our government should always strive to craft laws which encourage the best possible scenarios for our society - especially our children. As noted repeatedly, a defining characteristic of all same-sex family structures with children is deprivation, almost always accompanied by rejection (see details). VMAC feels that, despite any good intentions on the part of gay parents, the state should never attempt to redefine the normative institution of marriage toward a family structure defined by rejection. This would be highly irresponsible. Typical of same-sex marriage advocates, Ms. Olinick seems to have far more concern for the “rights” of the adult than the best interests of children.

Ms. Olinick shows a similar misunderstanding of how government affects social institutions via legislation. Marriage is a vital social institution which pre-exists law, and which provides well demonstrated social benefits (goods). These benefits are so important to society that our culture protects them through force of law. Such institutions are defined, without exception, by a web of widely shared public meanings. The law holds no power to “open” marriage to “include” homosexual couples, but it does have the power to suppress the nearly universally shared public meaning of a union between a man and a woman through the force of law.  In Canada, for example, the enacting of recent same-sex marriage laws required sweeping changes to existing law, including erasing the legal concept of “natural parent” and replacing it with the term “legal parent.” Similar changes have taken place in Spain, where the terms “mother” and “father” have been removed from birth certificates – replaced with the terms “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” In short, marriage is either the union of a man and a woman, or it is the union of any two people (hence “genderless” marriage). It cannot be both. A society can have traditional, man/woman marriage (and the social goods that it provides), or it can have genderless marriage. It cannot have both.

 

UVM talk long on bromides, short on data

Walt Amses, North Calais

February 24, 2008

Stephen Cable apparently cannot understand why college freshmen would be more enthused by a "sexually charged lecture" on orgasms than a stage full of middle-aged scolds citing propagandized "data" on mommys and daddys saving society. If this is really a point of confusion for Cable, he is in need of far more gentle, compassionate treatment than I am generally able to provide. However, in the spirit of inclusion I will temper my comments to insure intellectual deficits are not barriers to understanding. First, your "distinguished experts" are nothing more than highly paid shills for the Christian right. That's why they get laughed off the stage wherever they turn up. Law schools and universities are generally populated with smart people, not the best audience for presentations long on political bromides and short on objective data.

As noted elsewhere on this site, Prof. Stewart’s legal analysis of marriage laws in the United States have resulted in his arguments acquiring an undefeated track record (10-0) in Appellate level court cases across the country since the Massachusetts court decision. Prof. Stewart’s legal treatises have been published in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Rutgers University Journal of Law & Public Policy, Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, and others. This hardly constitutes being “laughed off the stage” by “smart people.”

Dr. Fagan’s presentation actually represents the majority opinion of social scientists on the role of family structure (see Weinstock response). Dr. Fagan’s professional assertions are based on a comprehensive examination of thousands of individual studies, and are echoed by prominent authors and experts in the field of marriage and family, such as David Blankenhorn, noted author and speaker. 

We also note that such scholarly opinions seem to be “laughed off the stage” only in Vermont, where genuine scholarly research seems to be substantially less valued than shrill, emotive opinion and superficial sound-bites.

In his most recent book, The Future of Marriage, Blankenhorn (see bio), who has authored eight books and co-edited five on various topics related to marriage and fatherhood, makes a statement stunningly similar to Dr. Fagan’s primary argument that “debate is over” regarding which family structure is best for children and society: “Today, scholarly opinion has shifted dramatically. One of the main intellectual struggles of the past generation is now largely over, because one side has won. As new research findings poured in, especially during the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and as the weight of evidence became increasingly obvious to most people, yesterday’s fighting words became the new scholarly conventional wisdom: Marriage matters. It significantly influences individual and societal well-being. Most importantly, the health of our children is strongly linked to the health of marriage.”

We note that in none of his public diatribes has Mr. Amses engaged a single fact presented by VMAC, Dr. Fagan, or Prof. Stewart, relying instead on insult and ad hominem attack. Rather than engage in such unwarranted personal attacks, we humbly invite Mr. Amses to limit himself to debating the facts presented.

Second, no one (but you) has ever suggested "replacing" heterosexual marriage with gay marriage. Of course depicting it that way helps rally the troops, its dishonesty notwithstanding, so you will continue to do it. Just as you will continue to reference another made up term "genderless" marriage whatever that means.

Mr. Amses’ assertions that we “made up” the term “genderless” are baseless. Nan D. Hunter, a professor of law, has also noted that legalizing same-sex marriage would have “enormous potential to destabilize the gendered definition of marriage for everyone.” [emphasis added] This concept is readily understood: Currently, marriage is limited to the union of two people of opposite gender (i.e. “gendered” marriage). To enforce same-sex marriage by law would eliminate gender requirements for marriage, thereby allowing participants of any gender (i.e. “genderless” marriage). This is a concept a child could easily understand.

Further, as noted in our FAQ, two similar institutions cannot coexist side by side: one must necessarily replace the other. To illustrate our assertion, we quote the Dutch same-sex marriage advocate Henk Krol, who, in a Time Magazine interview discussing the Netherlands’ adoption of same-sex marriage, inadvertently revealed the truth about the institution of same-sex marriage: “In the Netherlands, we don’t have gay marriage. We have one marriage, civil, open to any couple.” (Time, 5/30/04, emphasis added) This point was emphasized by Prof. Stewart, and elsewhere on this site: Vermont can have the institution of marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman, or we can have the institution of marriage defined as open to any couple (i.e. “genderless” marriage). We cannot have both.

And finally, if, as you say, the welfare of children is dependent upon two married, heterosexual parents, it would seem since the world is over 90 percent heterosexual that the difficulties of children have next to nothing to do with homosexuals.

This may come as a surprise to Mr. Amses, but a growing number of same-sex couples report having children. According to the 2000 Census, 34% of female same-sex households reported children under 18 (an increase of 72% since 1990), and 22% of male same-sex households report children under 18 (a 400% increase since 1990). Although most of these children are from prior relationships, a growing number are conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technologies such as artificial insemination (the use of ART has tripled since 1997). As mentioned in our response to Dr. Moss’ letter, many of the children’s voices emerging from such family structures reveals dissatisfaction with the fact that adult desires are given priority over children’s needs. We suggest a review of the website Tangled Webs for a more personal presentation of these voices.

Perhaps you should focus some of the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council's energy on preventing heterosexuals from marrying, rather than perpetuating the myth that a tiny percentage of Vermonters threaten an institution that by any measure is already a train wreck.

VMAC acknowledges that there are a growing number of dysfunctional marriages putting children at risk. VMAC is dedicated to pursuing any path which will strengthen marriage, and thereby provide a better environment for children.

It is revealing that Mr. Amses, like all same-sex marriage advocates, believe that the solution to the weakened state of marriage is to implement genderless marriage, which evidence strongly shows will weaken it further. This is reminiscent of the old quip from the war in Vietnam that “we needed to destroy the village to save it.” As amply noted throughout this site, there is overwhelming evidence that the adoption of genderless marriage will weaken, and may even destroy the existing social institution of marriage entirely (see responses to Prof. Moss and Weinstock) - and the accompanying social benefits. We reiterate and emphasize the simple truth that, regardless of good intentions on the part of the parents, all same-sex parented families are defined by deprivation, and nearly all are characterized by rejection of at least one biological parent by the other (often accompanied by rejection of the child by a mother or father) VMAC feels that this is not a sound recipe for broad public policy.
 

Bogus credibility given to faulty reasoning

Walt Amses, North Calais

February 17, 2008

Stephen Cable's taking exception to the tone of my op-ed piece criticizing his organization the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council is completely understandable. I can be pretty obnoxious at times. While providing an easy target as well as the motivation to respond, my inability to play nice with others does not necessarily mean my arguments are inaccurate.

The "conclusive findings" of social science research to which Cable refers are more than balanced out by "conclusive findings" supporting the opposite position.

Utterly False. As previously noted, the vast majority of the studies cited by same-sex marriage advocates are deeply flawed in structure, and insufficient in study size to be of any real value (see details). The conclusive findings of Dr. Fagan are indicative of the growing majority view of sociologists. Mr. Amses offers no support for his baseless assertions.

Advocacy research is specifically designed to "prove" things that are not true and is frequently employed by the right to add a measure of bogus credibility to otherwise faulty reasoning. Assertions regarding some mysterious impact of gay marriage decades down the road are so indefensible that Cable decides, since their validity is elusive at best, that, rather than the council proving them right, it is someone else's job to prove them wrong.

The correlation between support for same-sex marriage and greatly weakened overall support for marriage (and its derivative social goods) is well documented (see details). Such assertions are anything but “indefensible.”

This convoluted reasoning has become the convenient foundation of a number of bizarre notions including "Intelligent Design," the God-did-it-prove-he-didn't philosophy.

Sorry, the only actual "evidence" available from Cable and the VMAC is that their primary objective continues to be perpetuating unfounded fears about the prospect of gay marriage in Vermont.

Yet again, we repeat and emphasize the fact that same-sex family structures are always defined by deprivation and nearly always by rejection (see details). This is not subject to reasonable dispute. The overwhelming majority of data from psychological and social sciences clearly tells us that such rejection is harmful, especially to children. How much more data do advocates like Mr. Amses require to conclude that same-sex (i.e. genderless) marriage is not in the best interest of children or society? Perhaps they simply don’t care?

Inclusion is in the best interest of humanity

Ann Parker, St. Johnsbury

February 17, 2008

I find it unbelievable that Stephen Cable and his friends put so much energy into trying to hurt other families. First of all, especially as the Christians they profess to be, in what truly compassionate way are they intending to treat families of same-sex couples in the future? Because those families are not going to cease to exist just because Cable wants them to! It seems his goal is to actively and intentionally keep such families at a disadvantage in our society and make sure they have fewer rights and advantages than he does. It sure doesn't seem to me that a better community will come from that.

There are absolutely no statements of religious belief or affiliation anywhere on this site, or in any of the public comments from any members of VMAC. Perhaps Ms. Parker has confused VMAC with some other organization? As to the issue of compassionate treatment of same-sex couples, we wholeheartedly agree that all people are entitled to dignity, safety, and compassion. Nothing in VMAC’s mission or statements run contrary to these goals.

History has proved to us time and again that marginalizing groups of people always causes harm to the whole of society. And wouldn't most Christians agree that Jesus taught us to love and care for our neighbor as we would want to be loved and cared for? Jesus never talked about leaving any families out!

Although, as previously noted, VMAC makes no religious statements of any kind, we would question the assertion that Jesus would approve of a family structure which is defined by motherlessness, fatherlessness, and almost always by rejection (see details). Such a notion seems sharply at odds with the precept of “loving and caring for our neighbor as we would want to be loved and cared for.” Further, in the interest of accuracy, we note that the only place in the New Testament where Jesus speaks specifically to the institution of marriage is in Matthew 19:4-9, where He specifically affirms both the male/female centrality of marriage, and His firm denunciation of divorce; clearly pronouncing that marriage should be for the life of the man and woman.

I find it particularly sad when I hear people espouse the kind of fear and insecurities about societal change that Cable does. Thankfully, we have continued to evolve throughout the history of our country in ways that correct the mistakes we've made in the past. After all, women are no longer considered property in a marriage, and blacks and whites can certainly now marry. Back in the day, a few "experts," similar to Cable's, argued how those changes would harm our society, too. Thankfully, many others were wiser.

Societal change does not always produce positive effects. As noted elsewhere on this site, the societal changes which Ms. Parker advocates will have profound effects on our society. Indeed, as a result of radically changed attitudes regarding marriage and family structure, the United States witnessed the following changes from 1960-1981:

• ¨The crime rate quadrupled (Vermont rapes increased 1,400 percent per capita)
• ¨Divorces doubled
• ¨Drug abuse soared
• ¨Gonorrhea infections tripled, and STD infections in general skyrocketed.
• ¨Teenage pregnancies increased five-fold
• ¨Single female parent households increased 250 percent
• ¨Education declined sharply: SAT Scores dropped 80 points, per-pupil spending quadrupled, top school problems shifted from talking in class to rape and murder.
• ¨Federal spending on welfare programs increased ten-fold, and increased by that amount again by 2000.
• ¨The epidemic of HIV/AIDS began

We find it difficult to share Ms. Parker’s view that such changes indicate that our culture is “evolving” in a positive direction. Indeed, prominent sociologist Paul R. Amato has opined that, if marriage were as strong today as it was in 1970:

• 643,000 fewer children each year would fail a grade at school
• 1,040,000 fewer children each year would be suspended from school
• 531,000 fewer children each year would need psychotherapy
• 453,000 fewer children each year would be involved in violence
• 515,000 fewer children each year would be cigarette smokers
• 179,000 fewer children each year would consider suicide
• 71,000 fewer children each year would attempt suicide

(Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 2005)

We do not feel that openly and honestly debating the causes of such critical changes in our culture is tantamount to “espousing fear and insecurity.” It would seem clear that the radical devaluation of marriage is a central factor in these major cultural changes.

We've learned that inclusion is always in everyone's best interest. And people walk with a much lighter load and a community is richer when we look for our similarities instead of our differences. I find it irresponsible of Cable to put forth two "experts" to present a case for societal harm and act as if they are the voices of academia which they absolutely are not. It is much easier to find an academic argument that repudiates their position. And please, check Webster's definition of "gender" you'll find that trying to define same-sex couples as "genderless" is not a legitimate or intelligent argument.

Once again, if we take such assertions at face value, then one must logically concede that, in the interest of such undefined “inclusion,” our culture would have to embrace any form of “marriage,” such as the three-partner “marriage” sought by bisexuals (e.g. one man/two women, or two men/one woman), as well as the previously mentioned example of polyamorous group “marriages” which are not limited to any number or gender of individuals. Clearly, some restrictions must apply to marriage, otherwise “marriage” would cease to have any intelligible meaning, and the institution of marriage would cease to exist entirely. The current debate is over precisely where to draw the line as to who may, or may not marry. Wherever that line is drawn, someone will be barred from marriage. VMAC feels that wherever that line is to be drawn, the decision should place children’s rights above adult desires.

Neither Dr. Fagan nor Professor Stewart stated that they were “the voices of academia.” However, as noted repeatedly, Dr. Fagan’s conclusions are very much in line with the majority of social scientists (see FAQ #5), and Prof. Stewart’s legal analysis and arguments are both widely published and have attained an undefeated track record (10-0) in appellate level court cases since Massachusetts. Such facts would hardly demonstrate that Dr. Fagan or Prof. Stewart hold minority views in their fields.

I can't help but think that a much better use of Cable's energy would be to focus on combating real societal ills. Why doesn't he promote volunteering at a local homeless shelter or humane society or fostering a child who was abandoned by her parents?

VMAC feels that the ensuring the health of the institution of marriage is absolutely critical to “combating real societal ills.” Indeed, an honest review of the sociological data would strongly suggest that there is no single factor which has a greater influence on societal ills than marriage and resulting family structure.

There are so many needs and problems in our communities that could use his focus. Same-sex couples, families and our communities don't need his hurtful and negative attention. Cable should put his energy somewhere positive and make a difference that helps the world be a better place for all of us, not a harder place for some of us.

Marriage and child-rearing are the fundamental building blocks of our entire culture. Given this undeniable fact, it would be hard to imagine a better or more positive cause than to protect and preserve all of the benefits which marriage is capable of providing to our children and our society. Indeed, a cogent case has repeatedly been made that most, if not all, of the societal ills that concern Ms. Parker are the direct result of the breakdown of marriage and family. To champion marriage and the rights of children is not “hurtful” or “negative,” but the only socially responsible course.

Newspaper Commentary by Twinfield Union School teacher Walt Amses

published in the Sunday Times-Argus, followed by VMAC’s response

Vermont's intrepid hetero heroes are on the march (again)

February 3, 2008

Walt Amses

Of course the debate thus far has been civil. Mostly because it really hasn't been much of a debate at all. Having boycotted the state's gay marriage hearings, blaming the makeup of the panel, subsequently urging their constituents to boycott as well, the "Vermont Marriage Advisory Council" will now ostensibly explore what they're calling the "benefits of traditional marriage." Presumably, the "threat" represented by the possibility of Vermont sanctioning gay marriage will also be illuminated.

In separate proceedings they will innocently assert how "divisive" reopening this discussion is while doing everything humanly possible to make the issue as divisive as it can be. They will couch their arguments in the sanctimonious, "love the sinner, hate the sin" condescension of Christian thugs while flooding the media with vicious propaganda – frequently provided by their theocratic puppet masters on the far-right fringe.

If the group was actually worried about how "divisive" the issue was, why align with the Family Research Council, James Dobson's vehicle for spreading evangelical intolerance under the guise of "family values"? Vermonters should be prepared for the VMAC revisiting the same feeble – and resoundingly inaccurate – arguments used in their losing fight against civil unions in 2000. Their assertion, that gay marriage will "weaken traditional man-woman marriage" is at once utterly absurd and a thinly disguised smokescreen for the homophobia rampant in fundamentalist circles.

Dobson's group spends much of its time protecting children through an expensive national ignorance campaign financed by swindling morons out of their life savings. Once strictly the domain of Southern fried dingbats juggling rattlesnakes, the movement attained some credibility with the election of George Bush and promptly lost it, becoming inextricably linked with the worst administration in American history. They also managed to demonstrate the pitfalls of "belief" trumping reality on a global scale.

Vermonters should keep in mind when presented with the "facts" outlining the threat of gay marriage that the state's Hetero Heroes have joined forces with folks whose vigilance identified similar dangers embodied in the homosexuality of Sponge Bob Square Pants; who lobby nationally against hate crime laws; denigrate condom use for aids prevention; promote the notion of men and dinosaurs living on earth at the same time; and fight to have pseudo science included in high school biology classes. Most of their initiatives would be loony as reality shows, why would we believe anything they had to say about the implications of gay marriage?

Some of the Family Research Council's arguments should embarrass anyone with a double-digit IQ. They are precisely the same justifications used by racists to vehemently protest interracial marriage in the middle of the 20th century including: It's counter to God's laws, unnatural, leads to incest and the breakdown of society, degrades "traditional" marriage, spreads disease, has an adverse impact on children and does not lead to the conception of children.

Considering the train wreck heterosexual marriage already is, how could gay marriage possibly make it any worse? In fact, if your marriage is unaffected by the couple down the road mentally, physically and emotionally abusing each other and their kids, why would it matter if they were both women or men?

Are we really afraid that the moment it's legal, guys leaving a pub after the Celtics game will elope instead of going home?

While raving about the sanctity of wedded bliss (conveniently ignoring its 50 percent failure rate) the advisory council might do well comparing the divorce statistics in the Bible belt – highest in the nation — to two states where both civil unions and gay marriage respectively are legal, Connecticut and Massachusetts, which have the lowest divorce rates in the country. Apparently, the "benefits of heterosexual marriage" have failed to make much of a dent on heterosexuals. Perhaps the council ought to shift its operation to Mississippi or Oklahoma where Bible-thumping alone doesn't seem to be getting the job done.

The simple fact is that what frightens the Vermont Advisory Council most is that the only leverage their argument has is the "threat" part. Once gay marriage is legal, the threat evaporates – exactly as it did with civil unions.

Because the threat is non-existent. And hopefully, if we're really, really lucky, when the smoke screen clears; the sound and fury ebbs; and rational thought prevails, this last vestige of government-sanctioned discrimination will evaporate along with it.
 

*Editorial note - there is no direct affiliation between VMAC and Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc, nor is there any religious content or affiliation inherent in VMAC’s stated mission or proffered materials.

VMAC Response (Published in Rutland Herald/Times Argus):

It would seem obvious from reading Walt Amses’ opinion piece in the Feb. 3rd paper assailing the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council (VMAC) and our recent forum at UVM that he neither attended it, nor bothered to review the videos or content posted on our web site, www.vermontmarriage.org. As a result, every assertion and assumption he makes is wrong and misleading.

Contrary to his claims, VMAC defends traditional marriage based only on the conclusive findings of a wealth of social science research, and the lessons of history. Religious and moral arguments were not used to oppose same-sex (i.e. genderless) marriage at the forum or on the website, nor has VMAC “joined forces” with the Family Research Council or any other religiously-based organization.

Instead, the two internationally-recognized experts speaking at our forum explained how and why the social institution of man-woman marriage provides many benefits to children, married individuals and society. There is no evidence that these benefits will not be diminished if we fundamentally redefine this critical institution by replacing traditional marriage with the completely untested institution of genderless marriage.

Indeed, in the few places where genderless marriage has been legalized such as the Netherlands disturbing evidence is emerging that societal harm follows. It will take at least a generation for social science to know what these true impacts are. 

This is why the claim Amses and other advocates make that legalizing genderless marriage or civil unions has not negatively affected traditional marriage demonstrates considerable ignorance of how social institutions actually work. It is also why VMAC (and common sense) insists that he and other advocates bear the burden of proof that what they are demanding will do no harm to society. Indeed, it is the lack of supporting evidence coupled with the wealth of social science data to the contrary which prompted France to legislate strict limitations on same-sex unions. Although allowing something akin to Vermont’s civil unions, France’s laws bar same-sex couples from marriage, adoption, and assisted reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination. The basis of these policies is France’s concern for the rights of children rather than the desires of adults – a concern and focus notably lacking in Mr. Amses’ and other genderless marriage advocates’ arguments.

It is ironic that Mr. Amses epitomizes the emotional and uninformed arguments that VMAC was organized to challenge as we debate this important social issue in Vermont. We invite all Vermonters to look beyond the blustery smokescreens generated by so many genderless marriage advocates, and take a calm, rational look at the facts of the arguments at hand. 

.