Response to Minnesota Marriage Minute video, Episode 18

Minnesota for Marriage has another video out, Episode 18. Once again, they're abusing statistics.

Give it a look, if you haven't seen it yet.

The question they're addressing today is

“Aren’t committed gay and lesbian relationships just the same as marriage relationships?”

They, of course, conclude that there's something very different about committed same-sex relationships.

No doubt many gay and lesbian couples profess love for one another but studies of gay relationships show that they are fundamentally different than the marriage relationship.

Really? Well, let's what these studies say.

"Marriage is characterized by by a lifelong commitment of both love and fidelity. Indeed, fidelity is universally expected in marriage, however, fidelity and monogamy are fundamentally lacking in many gay relationships. One recent study by gay researchers at San Francisco State University found that only 45% of gay male relationships are based on an expectation of monogamy. Other studies have put the percentage of gays and lesbians in open relationships as high as 75%. The New York Times wrote an article about this entitled "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret." The article said that couples having sex outside of their marriage might point the way for the survival of the institution. Dan Savage, a prominent gay sex counselor, is an outspoken advocate of open relationships, not only among the gay community, but among married heterosexual couples as well. He says, quote, "Monogamy is ridiculous and people aren't any good at it. We're not wired for it, we didn't evolve to be. It's unnatural, and it places a tremendous strain on our marriages, and our long-term commitments to expect them to be effortlessly monogamous." This attitude by the nation's leading media and gay advocacy voices shows how redefining marriage will impact all of society. If marriage is redefined to be genderless, our marital expectations will be challenged and the norm of monogamy and fidelity will be undermined. This would have profound adverse effects on children, parenthood, social responsibility, and the public good." 

So, what's wrong with their argument? Several things. First, take a look at "Indeed, fidelity is universally expected in marriage. . ." All you have to do is look at any polygamous culture (such as some in the Middle East) to falsify that statement. Or, you could look right here in the United States. Wikipedia cites numbers of 15% of married hetero couples having agreements that would allow extramarital sex (unfortunately, the most recent study on the issue that Wikipedia cites is from 1983, and when I poked around on Google Scholar for more recent studies about hetero open relationships, I was unable to find anything useful. Perhaps someone else knows of something?).

Second, they don't actually address the New York Times article they cite (found here). They simply take it as a given that the article is clearly wrong. Some passages from the article:

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

[. . . ]

According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules.

[. . . ]

A couple since 2002, [Chris and James] opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.

Notice that it's not exactly willy-nilly, sex with whomever they please when they please.

That transparency can make relationships stronger, said Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology.” 

“The combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust,” Mr. Quirk, of Oakland, said. 

“The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

Yeaaaaaa. . . . What's the divorce rate right now? Among heterosexual couples? Even if they can't agree with having open marriages, I suspect that an awful lot of couples could learn a thing or two about openness, honesty, trust, and communication from couples that have successfully negotiated open relationships. At any rate, Yanta did not address the reasons the New York Times said that open marriage may show a way to save the institution of marriage.

Now, the Dan Savage part annoys me for a couple of reasons. One, is it shows Dan Savage using the naturalistic fallacy when he calls monogamy "unnatural." I could just as easily say "Using chemotherapy to treat cancer is unnatural, therefore, using chemotherapy is bad." More importantly for this post however, is the implicit assumption by Yanta and Minnesota for Marriage that Dan Savage speaks for the the LGBT community. He doesn't. Yes, he's prominent. However, Pat Robertson is also prominent, but he does not speak for the entire Christian community. Even the Pope doesn't speak for every Catholic.

However, what's really wrong with this video is that the argument it makes and conclusion it draws really aren't connected. Let's assume for the sake of argument that an important quality of marriage is monogamy and not having sex outside your monogamous marriage, i.e., fidelity (note that being polyamorous, I obviously don't truly agree with that, but I'm willing to see what it does to the argument). Nothing in the New York Times article or the quote by Dan Savage, nor in the statistics quoted by Yanta, demonstrates that same-sex relationships are inherently different from heterosexual relationships. All it demonstrates is that a large number of homosexual people (and also some heterosexual and bisexual people) do not yet accept the idea of monogamy as a value. If Yanta's argument could be said to demonstrate that gay relationships are inherently different from straight relationships because a percentage of gay people are in open relationships, then Yanta's argument must also be said to demonstrate that straight relationships are inherently different from straight relationships because a percentage of straight people are in open relationships. That seems a contradiction, wouldn't you agree?

The importance of fidelity is separate from whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, and judging by the prevalence of adultery (without an agreement to be open), is a point that you would need to make to the heterosexual couples at least as much as you would to gay couples. Many same-sex couples would (and do) actually agree that fidelity and monogamy are important (25% - 55%, based on Yanta's own stats), and may very well join you in making that argument. That is, if you weren't sidelining them by claiming that their relationships are obviously inherently different from yours, or inherently wrong.

(As I was writing all of the above, another thought occurred to me. Is it possible that one of the reasons a larger percentage of gay relationships are open is precisely because gay relationships are marginalized by mainstream society? If you're being told that your attractions and relationships are wrong even though it is simply a part of who you are, and you are not harming anyone, then I would not find it at all surprising if that led to you being willing to buck society by trying out new relationship models.)

Minnesota Marriage Minute video, a response to Episode 17

Minnesota for Marriage has released Episode 17 of their Minnesota Marriage Minute video series, this time addressing the question:

Shouldn't marriage be redefined to accommodate the growing number of children of gay and lesbian couples?

Obviously, their answer is going to be "No." The interesting part is what reasons they give for saying "no," through the voice of Kalley Yanta. Yanta starts by saying that there are actually very few same-sex couples raising children, only 22% of same-sex couples in fact, using numbers from the Williams Institute at UCLA. It appears that Yanta's numbers may be out of date, actually, as the number is actually closer to 17%. The US Census Bureau (which the Williams Institute based some of it's numbers on) found some errors and revised their numbers in Sept, '11. The Williams Institute prepared a new snapshot using the revised numbers. Yanta does also use some numbers pulled from the Census data.

So, basically, when I checked the numbers and did the math, I came up with 0.21 percent of households in the US are same-sex households, and 0.04 percent of the total population is a same-sex couple raising their "own" child (which the Census defines as "never-married children under 18 who are sons or daughters of one partner or spouse (Person 1) by birth, marriage (stepchild), or adoption."). These numbers are lower than the ones Yanta uses, which of course she would undoubtedly believe strengthens her argument, which goes like this:

Why should the definition of marriage, which has served us so well, be redefined for the 99.88 percent of households, in order to accommodate the desires of the 0.12 percent? 

That's her entire argument. Well, let's consider an analogous situation. Prior to Loving v. Virginia in 1967, multiple states had laws on the books that banned interracial marriages. Just as today, we have laws banning same-sex marriage. Loving v. Virginia overturned the laws banning interracial marriage, and three years later the US Census Bureau conducted the census of the US. In 1970, the total population was 203,392,031, and the number of interracial marriages was approximately 65,000. That's a percentage of 0.031. That's less than the current percentage of same-sex couples (since same sex marriage is only legal in a handful of states, compared to interracial marriage being legal in all states in 1970, I'm using the figures for total same-sex households, not just those legally married; it's certain that many of those unmarried same-sex couples would like to be married, but cannot be legally). I don't have numbers for how many of those 65,000 interracial couples had children, but obviously the percentage of the total population would have been less than the percentage of same-sex couples with children in 2010.

So, why was it ok to redefine marriage in 1967 to accommodate the desires of 0.03 percent of the population (or less, if you just look at whatever number had children)? Equality, of course.

No matter how small a particular sub-population is, we do not have a right to deny that population equal rights with the majority. Ever. One of the strengths of a republic like America is that the minority is protected from an absolute tyranny of the majority. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be. That's what the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, and the "balance of powers" is supposed to help ensure. This is part of what the Supreme Court recognized in 1967, and why they overturned the miscegenation bans that were in place at the time.

The opposite has been proposed

Remember when I got annoyed that folks in the Minnesota legislature had decided they needed to spend time proposing and debating an amendment to Minnesota's constitution banning same-sex marriage? Remember when I proposed the opposite? Turns out, someone did.

Well, ok, it's not a constitutional amendment, it simply seeks to repeal the law banning same-sex marriage that is already on the books (yes, there's already such a law, it's just not a constitutional amendment), and add gender-neutral language anywhere marriage is referenced in the law. So perhaps it's not exactly the opposite. And I doubt that there's much chance the bill authors took the idea from me. I further doubt it's going to pass. But you know what? I'm just glad someone did it.

A letter on gay marriage

I live in Minnesota, and currently there's an issue being discussed in the legislature about an anti-gay marriage amendment, as I referenced here. Now, while I would honestly prefer if my elected officials were focusing on the budget problems we are currently faced with, I decided I couldn't let this issue pass. I am sending an abbreviated form of the following letter to my state representatives (abbreviated because I needed to keep it to less than a page -- that took some editing, but I succeeded). You may consider the following to be an open letter, applicable to anyone in any legislative body that cares to make similar proposals.

Letter to the Legislature

In regards to the proposal for an anti-gay marriage amendment to Minnesota’s constitution, I would like to come down against such an idea, and against putting the question on the ballot, and urge you to vote against such a process. Many reasons are put forth for people to support such an amendment, and for putting the question on the ballot. Please allow me to address a few of those reasons.

One of the big reasons put forth is the idea that “traditional marriage is between a man and a woman.” While it’s true that marriage in America has always been between a man and a woman as far as the law is concerned, merely being tradition is not a good reason to keep it that way. It was traditional at one time that women didn’t work outside the home, but I’ll hope you agree that changing that tradition has been an overall positive for society. I would argue that denying women the right to work outside the home was in fact unethical, and thus moving past that tradition was good for more reasons than economics. Moving past the tradition that marriage is just between men and women would be an ethical boost for Minnesota and the country, regardless of practical concerns (such as health decisions that may need to be made when one partner cannot speak for themselves).

Another idea that’s been floated is that marriage between members of the same –sex somehow harms or diminishes marriage between members of the opposite sex. How? I’m happily married to a member of the opposite sex, and cannot see any way in which the existence of same-sex relationships and marriage has harmed or diminished my marriage. Unless some pervasive, persistent harm to others can be demonstrated, I do not see any reason for the government to be denying recognition of same-sex marriage.

Now of course, there is a big reason that I haven’t addressed yet: religious objection. If the only, or the major, objection that you or anyone else has to same-sex marriage is a religious one, then I would argue that runs right up against the separation of church and state that has been such a benefit to America, and its goal of equality for all. Some religions and religious people do not object to same-sex marriage, and indeed some endorse it to the same extent they endorse traditional marriage. To codify one religion’s view into law would be to favor that one religion over others, which would be a severe step backward toward the days of state churches. 

I said earlier that I also object to the question being put on the ballot for voters to decide. This, at first glance, seems like an attractive option. We live in a democracy, voting is one of our great rights and privileges. It’s how we choose the people who create our laws and formulate the policies that, when done right, benefit all of us. Unfortunately, sometimes that very system of majority rule can act against us. This is sometimes referred to as the “tyranny of the majority.” There are times when popular opinion and views are not good. For example, if during the days of the civil rights movement for African-Americans and other minorities it had been put to a vote to the public whether equal treatment of all, regardless of race, should be encoded into law, I hesitate to believe the vote would’ve gone in the direction of equality. Discrimination was rampant, and even traditional, and it was for that reason that people needed to march and protest. The law had to be changed so that unethical tradition could be changed. 

It may be that at this time in history a majority do not want same-sex marriage recognized by the law. Many feel it’s immoral, and perhaps you agree. This does not mean that it’s right, or that the government should be involved in legislating morality when there is no evidence of pervasive harm to society. 

In closing, I would just like to point out that this is not a minor issue. Marriage is intricately woven into the fabric of our laws, affecting taxes, health benefits, credit issues, and a variety of other things. I do not recall the exact number, but a study was once done that counted the number of times “marriage” appears in the laws of Minnesota, and the total was in the thousands (if not more). 

I thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you would like to discuss this further, there are various ways to contact me, which I’ve included below. Thank you again.

(Anyone who wishes to discuss this letter, the issues, or the points I bring up -- or points on the issue I didn't bring up -- may feel free to do so in the comments. I welcome the discussion.) 

Really? Can I propose the opposite?

Minnesota Republicans offer constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

James Croft at Temple of the Future addressed the issue of why people object to homosexuality recently, saying

"Sure, it’s about fear, and wariness of difference, and the human need for a scapegoat – all dark aspects of the human soul which bequeath us racism and other forms of hatred. But really, it’s about power."

I'd like to add disgust to that list as a factor. I think there are those who don't fear it, who probably aren't that wary of difference, and don't look too hard for scapegoats: they just think it's disgusting. Whatever. Keep your disgust out of my marriage, and the marriage of my friends and acquaintances. Those emotional problems are your problems, and I'd be happy to assist you in finding ways to deal with your problems. Limiting the rights of people is not dealing.

The power thing? The worst reason of all to be shoving your nose in the lives of others that aren't harming anyone.

Seriously. How about thinking with a bit of respect for others for once, and oh, I dunno, propose the opposite amendment?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman [a union between adult, consenting couples of any gender or sexual orientation] shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”


There. Fixed it for ya.