Same-sex marriage linked to decline in teen suicides
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
On conservative commentary website Stream.org, statistician William M. Briggs (who, take it for what it's worth, opposes same-sex marriage) offers a critique of the study's methodology and conclusion, as well as the conclusion that the study expressly does not make, but that the headlines have made:
https://stream.org/no-a-study-did-not-show-that-same-sex-mar...
A few interesting snippets from his critique:
> A weighted 8.6% to a weighted 8%, they say. This is a 7% reduction, all right, but a minor tweak in the actual weighted number. The numbers are weighted averages across several states and the result of a statistical model called a linear regression. The 0.6 drop is not observed, but is the output from a model.
> The numbers within states is anything but straightforward (the authors provide graphs). For instance, some states show reported suicide attempts increasing after gmarriage (New York, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, for example). The graphs also indicate a general decline in rates before gmarriage and continuing afterwards (see their Fig. 3).
> putting Ebola in the model works equally well with gmarriage to explain the data. So do the disasters of those crashing Malaysian airliners, or the fighting in Ukraine and Crimea. So does the 2014 Winter Olympics!
One other point that Briggs makes only indirectly, but bears mentioning, is that measuring the number of self-reported unsuccessful suicide attempts only provides us with part of the picture; we can't make any firm conclusions about what its rise or fall says about suicide prevention unless we also know the number of _successful_ suicide attempts. For instance, it might be the case that some suicide prevention factor reduces the likelihood that any given suicide attempt is successful. Maybe hospitals have gotten better at reducing the mortality rate of intentional overdoses. In such a case, the rate of suicide attempts might remain relatively flat, but the rate of unsuccessful suicide attempts would rise, and the rate of successful suicide attempts would fall.
Statistical noise is always present, so of course suicide among GSM teens did not uniformly drop.
The JAMA study used different years for different states, as same-sex marriage became legal in different states at different times. His criticism about "any event in 2014 explains this drop in suicide" is malformed.
By the way, if you look at the accompanying figure 2 and figure 3 in the JAMA article, you will see just how noisy the data is for both Wave 1 and Wave 2 states, as well as the relative lack of post-2014 data points. Honestly, just looking at those two charts should be enough to give you a healthy skepticism about the conclusion, whatever your ideological views.
Take perspective of the modeller. What would be the first circle of influence in teen suicide? Probably direct social interactions (family, peers). Second circle? More abstract things like succes in school, relationships, the absence of bullying. For a regulatory change to have a meaningfull and measurable effect on suicides (literally the most drastic step available) is hard on first sight.
And then the step to research design. How would one expect to find a determinating factor by a DiD-design with only some regulatory measure as an explanatory factor?
For me, after looking into this study. First explain me the state by state differences in teen suicides over time adequately, before you start explaining the effect of gay marriage on teen suicides.
Along with 'gay marriage', 'gay acceptance' has been on the rise in general. Social interventions, heck, social media and the internet (i.e people can form like minded networks etc..).
Even a small change in policing and social policy could cause this. A bullying program.
There are so many things that could 'cause' a tiny drop in teen suicide.
Perhaps. But we know there's a correlation between being gay and dying by suicide. We know that gay people are more likely to die by suicide than straight people.
Suicide is a complex phenomena and we should avoid simplistic reasoning, but anything that makes life easier for people to be gay is likely to reduce the numbers of death by suicide of gay people.
EDIT: I don't normally comment on downvotes, but this post is getting lots and I'm a it confused about why.
Here's the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm
> Negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people put these youth at increased risk for experiences with violence, compared with other students.1 Violence can include behaviors such as bullying, teasing, harassment, physical assault, and suicide-related behaviors.
[...]
> LGBTQ youth are also at increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors, suicide attempts, and suicide. A nationally representative study of adolescents in grades 7–12 found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide as their heterosexual peers.3 More studies are needed to better understand the risks for suicide among transgender youth. However, one study with 55 transgender youth found that about 25% reported suicide attempts.4
Wikipedia has a reasonable collection of references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth
So it would seem that the drop was more pronounced among gay people.
The truth of the conclusion seems irrelevant.
Flawed study shows A implies B.
Hey! Study is flawed!
Flaws don't matter, because it got the expected result.
In this particular example the linked blog post is not saying "hey, this study is flawed", but is saying "I hate gay people and I don't want them to think that their sham marriage is in anyway equivalent to my real marriage". It's pretty clear that the linked post is only trying to find flaw with this study because they disagree with it; if you presented something with exactly the same flaws but showing A implies NotB they'd be praising it as good quality science that supports their point.
EDIT: a quote from the linked post:
>> Think about what the authors are implying: that the mere presence of gmarriage — government-defined marriage, as opposed to marriage defined by reality — stops teens from reporting suicide attempts.
>> This is among all teens, mind you, and not just the minority reporting same-sex attraction or other non-biologically oriented sexual desires. The authors claim the effect was greater in the sexual minority.
The author is clearly, unambiguously, a bigot looking to smear a study. He's not engaged in honest science.
Here's another example of his "science" writing, where he calls evolution a "theory in crisis": https://stream.org/darwins-finches-evidence-evolution-think/
And in your second paragraph, you're saying that the critique is not saying, "Hey, this study is flawed," but is saying, "I hate gay people and I don't want them to think that their sham marriage is in anyway equivalent to my real marriage." Briggs makes no secret of the fact that he rejects same-sex marriage, but the vast majority of his post is devoted to flaws in the study, not to his own personal objections to same-sex marraige, and although his ideological views probably are a motivating factor for his scrutiny of the study, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the points he makes.
Has he ever made similar points about studies that support his anti-gay marriage views? or his climate sceptic views? It should be really easy for him to find bad science among climate sceptics - has he ever written about that?
As far as I can tell, Briggs is Catholic, and he does mock Catholic officials -- including the Pope -- occasionally.
For example, I can say that hell is at the center of the Earth, and that's why it's hot.
It is indeed hot, but it is not due to hell at all.
In the context of this article, I don't think anyone is contesting that gay people are more likely to kill themselves, or that gay marriage is not an improvement.
However, the quality of this specific study apparently can be doubted, and the fact that one agree with the conclusion does not mean we should be lenient on the quality of the math behind it
I hate studies that ignore missing data by saying it's not relevant.
I can only conclude that some people have a radically different idea of "freedom" and "smaller government" than I do.
Bringing it back to the original topic a bit, it's sad that people's reactions are so predictable. People in favor of same-sex marriage think this study is great. People who oppose it think it sucks. How boring! Show me someone in favor of same-sex marriage who thinks this study is terrible, or someone against who thinks the study is really good.
Or they are not acting in good faith.
They want the freedom to limit the freedom of others. They see no problem with that at all.
Small government conservative here. It's actually pretty simple:
Small government: the government should stop meddling in marriage altogether. It's a social and often religious institution.
Freedom: We take seriously the founders' belief that government should not infringe on religious liberty.
My comment was neutral about gay marriage. I was trying to tie the relationship between demographics and Nation-States and why hetero-sex is mostly overlook but important ingredient.
May be in the future each of us get to have clone armies and designer babies, I do not know. But to pretend Sexuality and its outcomes have no bearing in Life and Destiny of a Nation to me is laughable.
The only technology you fundamentally need is enough alcohol for the involved parties to have sex against their preference.
"Against their preference" does not mean "against their will." I'm referring to gay people consensually having heterosexual sex in order to procreate.
To be clear, I'm not sure it is an effective subsidy to begin with, but that's a moot point as far as this discussion goes.
If there's some perceived benefit in legal recognition of a romantic union, then there's no reason to exclude same-sex unions.
Basically, there are a few consistent positions:
1. Children are important. Outcome: either incentivize children, or incentivize fertile couples.
2. Romantic unions are important. Outcome: legally recognize all of them, including same-sex couples.
3. Freedom and small government is important. Outcome: stop recognizing marriage and let people handle it privately.
4. Religion is important. Outcome: legally recognize marriage under something like the rules of your religion.
We can argue for and against the merits of these individual possibilities, but what I can't understand is when someone uses an argument for #1 (as the other commenter here is) or #2 (as the site being discussed is) but somehow ends up with the outcome from #4.
Well, that is what the other commenter is arguing that we already do, at least in theory. The laws are from a different time, so there are many modern-day loopholes for sure, but when you look at the conditions at the time when the laws were enacted marriage would be essentially limited to those who could (to the best of their knowledge) and were willing to have children, intended to create an environment to make having children amiable.
Even divorce law is predicated on the idea that the spouse will stay home to take care of the children. Since that leaves one member of the household without an income for many years, in the event of a dissolution of the partnership one member will be left out in the cold, so to speak, so we created rules to share the proceeds gained in the process to ensure that each party is compensated for their efforts.
I think we can find all kinds of arguments as to why that is flawed in 2017, but if we just stick to the assumption that the subsidy provides exactly the expected outcome: Why does it need to change at all?
But, since nobody seems to be incorporating that data in the discussion, I'm not sure we can really fault the other commenter for believing that we are getting the desired results out of the existing subsidies. The results haven't shown up as a clear negative with respect to the intended outcome, so it is natural to assume, without better information, that it is working just fine. And, as you said, if it is working just fine there is no need for change.
Absolutely, more data is needed in this discussion to evaluate the effectiveness of what we have and to compare against alternatives. But to outright dismiss the unmeasured effectiveness of a subsidy because a handful of people have proven the willingness to do the same without that subsidy seems to be the only silly part of this discussion.
This article is US-centric, and the US does not have a problematic low reproductive rate (total fertility rate of 1.9), so I fail to see the relevance.
Funny ol' world, eh?
Gay families can and do raise children. Being unable to naturally produce children doesn't preclude raising children.
My mother-in-law is gay. When she was a young adult, before she came out, she got married and had children because "that's what you did" and she didn't have the courage to go against what was expected of her.
She, however, was incredibly miserable. Her distress with being gay and married to a man was a huge contributor to her drug and alcohol addition at that time. As a result her children didn't have a good family life.
Finally she was distressed enough to divorce my father-in-law and come out.
She's now married to a woman, totally sober, much healthier (she dropped over 100 pounds), and very happy.
Others are campaigning to make polygamy legal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sister-wives-case-utah_u...
Some support pedophilic polygamy: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-jeffs-trying-to-lead-poly...
How on earth is allowing other people to get married infringing on your religious liberty??
The logic of this baffles me.
I disagree with you, but I will not downvote your comment.
Healthcare: The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charitable organization that also offers healthcare for women, were required by the Affordable Care Act to provide contraception as part of their services. This infringed on the religious liberty of practicing Catholics. Nonetheless, the federal government fined the Little Sisters of the Poor for not providing a service the Catholic Church considers immoral. Million of dollars in lawyer fees later, the Supreme Court finally reversed the decision [0].
Marriage: A gay couple asked a Jack Phillips, a Christian baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make the wedding cake for their upcoming gay marriage ceremony. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths all forbid homosexuality; Philips asked the couple to take their business elsewhere. But the couple took Phillips to court and the court ruled that Phillips and his staff were required to break their moral convictions and were ordered take re-education classes and file quarterly compliance reports for two years [1].
[0]: http://thelittlesistersofthepoor.com/#supreme-court-ruling
[1]: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/26/christian-baker-forced-to-...
You are merely changing the language to avoid admitting the reality of a government infringing on religious liberty.
The government forcing religious people to go against their religion is infringement of religious liberty. Forcing those religious people to undergo government re-education classes is Stalinesque.
The founders of the US saw this potential abuse; it's why religious liberty is protected as the first right in the Bill of Rights.
And on a broader point, this is why we fight for small government: a large, powerful government is a bastion for tyranny. And the religious are merely the canary in the coal mine.
Perhaps the left will recognize this wisdom after President Trump issues executive orders overturning all that the left holds dear.
Everything else in your comment is basically offtopic.
You dismissed it as pertaining to anti-discrimination laws, even though it specifically was caused by same-sex marriage laws and involved a dispute about religious freedoms in response to those laws.
Imagine a world in which any healthcare provider could arbitrarily decline coverage for anything on the grounds of "religion". Have a genetic illness, sorry that's founded on the "theory" of evolution we're not going to cover you, etc. Allowing healthcare providers to pick and choose coverage is a nightmare for consumers .
Your second example is a similar issue. Allowing businesses to arbitrarily deny service to minorities (the case would have been different if the couple asked for a custom cake with a phrase the Phillips found objectionable) is not small gov or freedom of religion. It's just plain bigotry.
A citizen's freedom of religion ends when the next citizen's rights begin. If you take that away you might as well be living in a Theocracy.
What "right" are you talking about here? The gay couple's "right" to force a particular person to bake them a cake? There is no such right.
Likewise, there's no "right" to healthcare. You can't force a doctor to perform a medical procedure on you, for example. Forcing people to provide you with their services is called slavery.
It is someone's "opinion" that a private Catholic Christian charity should exercise a procedure or have a policy that is strictly against the values of that organization.
Strictly speaking, as intelligent adults here, we can rationalize that a Catholic charity does not believe in contraceptives or abortions and would not participate in these activities. They have a long held history of this practice and it wasn't made up on the spot because they felt like it, such as your example of belief in evolution leading to denial of a procedure, which very few if any people in this country hold and especially any organizations that practice in the field of medicine.
Frankly, if you have issue with private healthcare providers having a choice in their practice, you should be for a legal framework and consumer market that allows for more consumer choice instead of less so people can choose a provider that works with what they need. In a truly free market, this would be extremely easy to accomplish.
As to the baker example, it doesn't require any further explanation than this. No private individual or business has a solemn duty to respect and faithfully accommodate the practices and requests of another individual that they object too. Would a satanist be a protected individual with case to sue if they specifically wished for a Christian bakery to create a cake with Jesus impaled on a cross? Afterall, the satanist is a minority holding a minority belief.
As citizens in a free society, if we want to start rolling back division in this country, we need to dramatically improve our education, and we need to start allowing people to behave freely again, good and bad. Forcing people into associations they don't want to have causes further division ultimately.
That case might be an argument against laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexuality, but it's not an argument against same-sex marriage.
"Religious liberty," especially in the context of the American founders, is the freedom to practice your faith privately in whatever manner you wish, and to speak about that faith publicly without fear or persecution. It is not the freedom to impose your religious mores on other people who do not share your religion, or even those who do. To imply otherwise is to bastardize what this country was founded on and does a disservice to the founders.
If you want government to stop meddling in marriage, I hope you're fighting against tax breaks and other marriage incentives just as hard as you are against allowing two people you'll never meet to enjoy the same recognition straight people do.
That's a common viewpoint today, but there's nothing in the 1A about _private_ exercise of religion. The public exercise of religion is very much what is protected though there are limits when it affects others or infringes on other laws (e.g., bigamy, etc.)
Tax breaks and other marriage incentives have a legitimate function in domestic policy (e.g., it's very much in the state's interest to encourage two-parent families for raising the next generation of productive citizens). While those reasons are not always entirely uncontroversial, it's unfortunate that they are sometimes swept up into the debate around "getting government out of the marriage business."
Civil (ie. government sanctioned) marriage is a social construct that most people want to, and eventually will, enter into. People enter into marriages because they want the legal framework around it. If there were no legal framework around marriage people would have to run around filling out paperwork everywhere setting up their partner as their next-of-kin.
There's also currently no non-marriage way to create the same sort of civil partnership that marriage brings, stuff like spousal privilege and unlimited inheritance just to name two. And these are things people want. If all people were interested in was religious marriage or partnership/love/companionship they either wouldn't bother getting married or wouldn't bother registering their religious marriage with the state.
Its currently impossible to get government out of marriage without also fundamentally changing our concept of marriage.
There's arguments that the "family/marriage" concept is benefited too much in society, and I'd probably agree with that.
You may be mistaking American secularism with laicism.
> It is not the freedom to impose your religious mores on other people who do not share your religion, or even those who do.
I agree. This is why the Christian concept of marriage should not be imposed on others, like Muslims and Mormons who are perfectly happy with polygamy.
For example, we support the Bill of Rights' 1st amendment which states the government shall make no infringement on the free exercise of religion. That's a regulation that protects liberty, so we support it.
And we are generally pro-life for the same reason: the Declaration of Independence states that every person has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since abortion snuffs out all three, we seek regulation that restricts it.
The end goal is the same: smaller government, less powerful, with less impact on individual liberty.
So basically, bigger government. A smaller government would recuse itself and let the surrounding society punish infringement on protected liberties, which it already does quite well (example: do you, a San Francisco landlord, trust a racist renter over a non-racist one? And you know, because you looked them up on Facebook.)
Aren't you the least bit concerned with the other sectors of your society, that don't necessarily come to the same conclusions as you, taking notice and doing the same thing to yours? What happens when the definition of "every person" isn't universal ("group of cells" defined in an arbitrary way for the Left, from conception for the Right), or when different groups are split between which one is more important (parent for the Left, unborn child conceived the "right" way for the Right)?
Let's take another 1A example- freedom of speech. Both the Left and the Right have legitimate claims that exercise of certain kinds of speech damages the fabric of society. Their names and emphasis on certain parts are different, but the incidentals are otherwise identical (societies, like religions, are destabilized by blasphemy). But if we cave in and allow one subgroup's restriction, the other logically follows and every subgroup suffers- hard power is even more inflexible than an opposing subgroup's view of you/r group.
So subsocities agree to disarmament; one group gives up the authority to ban stuff culturally justifiable in areas held by a different group, and vice versa. This is the other purpose of the Bill of Rights- all groups, including yours, need protection from the society around them. The fact that there's an amendment ensuring that groups can defend themselves with force if things really go wrong should speak volumes about how important and valuable that treaty is.
I agree, the government should get out of marriage, but that also necessarily implies that it gets no special legal recognition, and would mean that gay people could also get married.
Governments may wish to encourage male-female marriage (moms & dads => children and healthy environment => productive families => civilization). If that means less taxation for families, and thus a smaller and less powerful government, all the better.
Would that be bad?
Seems religiously motivated to me, as you'd expect. Nothing extraordinary.
Of course they also invent other reasons, and bend the facts to fit their views. But everybody does that, it's just human nature.
Please understand, I'm not attempting to make a general argument about every single person opposed to same-sex marriage. I'm specifically discussing the attitudes of stream.org, and by extension other people who hold a similar "freedom, small government, and no same-sex marriage" attitude.
"Free societies protect private property. They allow their citizens to participate in the political process, to make basic economic choices, to exercise virtue and charity and to freely exercise their religious faith."
"Evil is not just in our imaginations. We can’t eradicate it with the right amount of social engineering or positive thinking."
"The state does not determine what marriage and family are, but it must recognize them. We should oppose political attempts to redefine marriage, which are wars against the creation itself."
If they think official recognition of only "traditional" marriage is more important than the other stuff, then fine, but they should stop pretending that they're all about freedom.
Liberty in this sense as used by the site you mention, includes certain responsibilities, while the libertine is unrestrained or free of responsibility.
Smaller government would be a government that does less stuff, grants status to fewer people, etc. Marriage is a legal construct that allows a couple to receive special status from the state. Same-sex marriage advocates are in favor of the government extending the benefits of that special status to an additional class of relationships. It's consistent with small government platforms to be suspicious of such expansions, regardless of one's feelings about the independent merits of the arrangement.
Hypothetically, one could be the largest advocate of permanent same-sex coupling while simultaneously believing that the government doesn't need to expand the definition of marriage to include them under its umbrella.
Not trying to drag this out, but no one has really said this yet. Opposing the expansion of marriage is consistent because expanding government is always met with suspicion by small government advocates.
No, consistency wouldn't demand that. Small government people are not automatically "no government" people. I'm saying it's natural for them to be skeptical of the expansion of services to cover new arrangements. That's government growth; small government people are likely to take a default dubious position for almost all forms of government growth/expansion, but that doesn't mean they have to oppose every function the government currently performs. That'd make them anarchists, not conservatives.
So when someone says "I want to expand a government-granted status to a new thing", the natural small government reaction is "You better have a very compelling case, because we hate the words 'expand a government-granted status'".
Going beyond this, we get into an argument on the details of same-sex marriage, and this is neither the time nor the place for that, but the point is that it is conventional for a small government proponent to view proposals to expand a longstanding legal tradition with suspicion, without necessarily requiring them to be hostile to that legal tradition as it stands. Pretending like this doesn't make sense is creating a false dichotomy. The choice doesn't have to be between "same-sex marriage" or "no marriage" to be internally consistent.
Your argument is basically that people tend to be more skeptical of change than of the status quo. Which is absolutely true, but it's not reason, it's just inertia.
"Small government" people are as prone to this mental shortcut as anyone, but that doesn't make it consistent or reasonable, it just makes it human.
We can't get into the details without this turning into a debate on same-sex marriage in general, but my point is that small government people are extra skeptical of changes that expand the government. More skeptical than the average person, because beyond simple inertia, there is an ideology that says the government should be limited and that growth should be opposed unless a compelling interest can be shown. That ideology must be satisfied to get small government people on board.
Any statistical study can be criticized as 'only being likely, not being certain.' Briggs does not provide contrary epidemiological evidence. His critique is based on the possibility of alternative explanation inherent in all statistical studies. At best there's a failure to understand the epistemological character of empirical knowledge.
Well, popular (or increasingly mainstream) results get more grants, peer acceptance and media coverage, so there's always that.
Up to the eighties those same journals would have no qualms "proving" that homosexuality is harmful, and in fact there were tons of studies to that effect.
(It works the same, but with an inverse sign, for those scientists going for the conservative audience and its, increasingly fewer, and more marginalised, grants).
So it could be more that the tide has turned, and a push to get a cute result to publish and get some publicity and good will, than an actual causation.
Better assign the same, high, probability in all fields where there are humans involved.
I assign a similarly low probability to the idea that the refuting author's self interest or fallibility caused him to publish an opinion that is at odds with the current mission of the organization that published it as I do to the probability that the original author is at odds with the purposes of the institution that published his research.
So while the data is real, for whatever reason this study focused on seeking out a specific political conclusion from it that is tenuously linked at best. I would like to see who funded this research.
We don't know, but probably "some". We can say that a state that forbids gay marriage might have schools that are less inclusive of LGBT teens, and that a state that allows gay marriage might have schools that are more inclusive of LGBT teens; and we sort of know that inclusive schools are important to reduce thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts, and deaths by suicide. (Although more research is needed.)
The CDC has some nice info, all sourced: https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm
You mentioned funding. That's described in the paper:
> Funding/Support: Ms Raifman is supported by training grants T32AI102623 and R25MH083620 from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Austin is supported by training grants T71-MC-00009 and T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services.
> Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources played no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Is that the conclusion the study comes to? Or is that an assumption you've made based on the headline here and not having read the study?
Pretty much none, I would expect. However, legalising same-sex marriage indicates a degree of acceptance by gay people.
I'm gay, and was born in 1985, in Ireland, which only formally legalised homosexuality in 1991. Employment discrimination against gay people only became illegal when I was 15 or so (thanks, EU), and we voted to legalise same-sex marriage when I was 29. As a kid, I felt that society was pretty bloody hostile to people like me, and I certainly did feel better when the employment discrimination law came in; I felt less like a second class citizen. Even though in practice it was rather rare for people to offend against this law, it signals certain societal attitudes.
The marriage referendum came late enough that it didn't really affect my self-image, but it's certainly plausible that it did for younger people.
This is why I always default to doubting "new study finds ..." until I can see the actual study.
Researchers get to choose the headlines about as much as programers get to choose the software features.
I don't require a license to exercise my right to free speech and publish something online or create a film. I don't have to apply for a license to practice religion. Why the hell do I need permission from the government to get married, especially when such a ceremony (for most people) is a religious one? Sure, some people go to the justice of the peace to get married. But nearly everyone has a religious ceremony or they hire a neutral officiant (or have someone they know get ordained).
Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. If we want to deem it something else, I'm fine with that. We can still allow people to get married and not have the government be involved. Why can't we just decide who we are going to get married to, and simply fill out some paperwork to declare (not ask permission) ourselves married and notify the government of our status change.
Asking permission is obscene and defeats the entire purpose of declaring it a "fundamental right".
Of course the commitment of those involved is the most important part of a marriage, but given the way our society works, the legal rights are also quite important.
But a lot of the other stuff having to do with tax benefits...I'm not too crazy about. The government is notorious for doling out tax benefits to activities they want to promote. Like the mortgage interest deduction. The government wants to promote home ownership so they created that to incentivize people buy homes. That's arguably the most popular tax break out there, but all it does is give preference to how you spend your money. Spend it on something the government approves of, and you get a tax break. Similar story with child tax credits, dependent care credits, etc. They are basically rubber stamping certain life choices. And the effect is that people who neglect or outright refuse to engage in these choices/expenditures end up paying more in taxes, all else being equal.
It's a much more culturally secular entity, and can defined better. For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married, which is more fair, I think.
'Marriage' is something cultural and religious. People can call themselves married, or not, it's not legally relevant.
You go to City Hall to register your partnership.
You go to Church (or whatever) to get married.
In the United States, they are legally different concepts, with marriage conferring more rights to the couple. Since Obergefell v. Hodges, civil unions are not really used.
In most countries which implemented them, that's broadly correct, yeah. In some countries there were also constitutional issues; in Ireland we had to change our constitution to permit same-sex marriage, for instance, so we had civil unions in the mean time.
In practice, though, there were lots of small unintended legal differences. Marriage has been around since before any modern society, and it weaves itself into laws and regulations. The campaign for equal marriage in Ireland found something like a thousand legal differences between civil unions and marriages, mostly essentially accidental. They're a mess and should be avoided if possible.
Civil unions were largely implemented as an alternative to marriage, usually only for same-sex couples, either because granting same-sex marriage was too contentious, unconstitutional, or similar reasons. And they worked like marriage; they were generally contracted just like a civil marriage. Generally, when countries permit same-sex marriage, they also remove any existing civil union laws. We had them in Ireland for a few years until the constitution was changed to allow same-sex marriage, for instance; after that the law was changed to forbid any new civil unions.
Civil marriage already is a civil union; distinct-in-name "civil unions" are a separate (if sometimes nominally equal) civic institution to keep same-sex unions segregated-in-name from opposite-sex unions.
> For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married
"The process of getting married" basically exists to (1) document the state of union to aid in dispute resolution, (2) provide notice of an opportunity for basic review for legal barriers to the union (which now are basically consanguinity and already being in a similar union with someone else), and (3) provide clear documentation of consent from both parties to.the formation of the union.
The less formal form you describe (common-law marriage) coexisted alongside formal "registered" marriage (and, arguably, is even more linked to religion than the formal kind, since it's a direct product of the Christian doctrine that sacramental marriage is created between the partners alone, with the Church and/or State functioning as additional witnesses, not the creators of the state), but has increasingly fallen out of favor because it creates a lack of clarity about legal rights and obligations.
It also would represent a much larger change than extending existing marriage benefits.
What you're asking for isn't permission to get married. You're asking for government recognition of your marriage.
Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony.
No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony.
Marriage is bigger than the wedding. Marriage means legal changes. Being married means that someone can hold you accountable for your spouse's debts. Being married means the joint ownership of property. Being married means next of kin status. Being married means legal presumption of paternity. Being married means survivor's benefits when one spouse dies.
These are all things what are enforced by the government and THAT is why marriage licenses exist.
Want to declare your undying love for your partner and become religiously, spiritually or culturally married? Go ahead. Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license.
But wanting government recognition so that the legal benefits can be had does not inherently require a license. It can and should be done through mere declaration and formal notification to the government. Our laws could absolutely be changed such that any two people (or more, I suppose, but for simplicity we'll leave it at two) could fill out paperwork and declare themselves married. As long as neither of those people have any existing/active declaration of marriage to someone else, then it would be valid and in force until otherwise revoked. This is very similar to what we have now except there is no permission needed. You are basically electing to put yourself into a specific set of rules, just like a contract, that both parties in the marriage agree to. That set of rules is known and defined and the declaration acts as an acceptance/agreement to enter it. And like a contract, it can't just be exited without the other party's explicit agreement to end it - otherwise adjudication would be required, like any contract dispute.
"No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony." This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand. No one has a wedding without being married. But I think what you are trying to get at is the legal aspect. All of that would still exist and does not inherently require a license, as I talked about above.
"Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license." My entire point is that the government has made it that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. The current licensing requirements restrict human freedom for no apparent reason other than for the government to reject lifestyles and values that are not approved.
You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank. Then you file paperwork with the government telling them that it was sold to you, what date you bought it, etc. Then you become the legal homeowner and it is recorded in the public record. You then receive all the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of being the homeowner. This is essentially identical to what I am saying for marriage. Why does marriage have to be any different?
There being an ability revoke means you still need government permission. The only difference is that we would assume a default answer of "Yes" when one asks.
This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand.
Perhaps I was being a bit pedantic but I also wanted to emphasize that there is a very big civil/secular aspect to marriage.
That's pretty much what modern civil marriage already _is_, though. The marriage can't be refused unless it's illegal for some reason (one or more participants under age or already married or something). You're essentially giving a notification; the state will reject it if there's something wrong with it; if it's kosher they'll give you an acknowledgement that they accept the notification. The "license" terminology (which isn't used everywhere) is perhaps not appropriate.
> You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank.
Funnily enough, when I bought my house I had to sign an elaborate declaration that I was not married (or civil union'd). This is because, in Ireland, the spouse automatically has rights to the family home, and it's illegal to clandestinely buy a house on your own in an attempt to avoid this. If I hadn't signed that, my purchase of the house wouldn't have been legal, but, like a civil marriage, it's basically just a declaration that all is in order.
Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though? The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins).
Why shouldn't my brother, or my best friend, or members of my yacht club, be able to hold joint ownership, or be my next of kin, or get benefits through me?
Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage.
In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms.
I did — I supported civil unions when they were on the ballot in my state.
It's not like you're required to get married. It's just a thing that's available if people want it. I'd certainly be in favour of more devolved rights traditionally associated with marriage being available (right to nominate next of kin etc).
I understand that this kind of thinking has fallen out of favor but the answer to your question is this, because the primary purpose of marriage is for having and raising children.
Of course, people who will never have children can and do get married. Of course, people who are too old to have children can get married. And now, people for whom it's biologically impossible to reproduce can get married.
Maybe it's time for a whole series of discussions about our society's future plans for marriage.
Marriage should be an n-party agreement with minor legal overhead, like an LLC.
The social purpose of the legal presumption of paternity (especially that that is clearly sought where that presumption is conclusive rather than rebuttable) is not affected by genetic testing.
> Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage.
The original and overwhelmingly consistent part of marriage (which has always been a civic institution, whatever religious connotations it might also share in particular times and places) is unifying property rights; it is at its core an economic relationship. (Various religious models provide a variety of explanations for why one might seek such an economic relationship.)
Bingo. Ownership of women, ownership of children, and subsequent inheritance of possessions (the illegitimate historically don't inherit) when the owner dies. Doesn't sound very nice to us, but it's what there was. Still, progress is what it's all about; maybe we can be better people than our ancestors.
The elephant in the room that must be established here is a biological one. As much as we can hold hands and sing about the beauty of love, it remains that biologically, only a man and a woman can have children.
Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides.
Now, there have been lots of heterosexual couples who marry on paper, never have kids, and for them it's largely a financial commitment (legally) and less of a social contract. I don't think same sex marriage is different in a financial regard than these examples, so I support it. But the situation gets somewhat more hairy when you consider that same sex couples may still want to raise children, and then the issue of surrogate mothers, adoption, same sex households, and all sorts of other potential legal complications come into play. How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example?
I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage, and I'm personally in a polyamorous relationship that's unlikely to be recognized legally in any way shape or form, so there's that as well. I just want to draw attention to some of the hidden complexities that it introduces.
These already exist. Gay couples have kids, even married ones.
Not really. Most of the legal effects of marriage amount to legal privileges of the parties to the marriage with respect to each other, both with property and in some power-of-attorney like ways.
The big exception is the presumption (rebuttable or absolute, depending on the jurisdiction) of paternity, which may be irrelevant to same sex [0] marriages (though, in principle, even ignoring the issues under the previous footnote the absolute form and it's stability-over-biology related motivations is equally applicable to same-sex female unions as it is to opposite-sex unions.)
[0] Though given that legal sex is really a form of socially-ascribed gender and may not align with biological sex, it's also arguable that presumption of paternity is just as applicable to same (legal) sex unions as opposite sex unions as a class, though statistically less likely to be relevant to any particular same sex union, given the loose correlation between biological and legal sex.
In many parts of the world, polygamy is legal. The president of South Africa has many wives. We dare not question their 'cultural integrity'.
A libertarian argument for polygamy could be made easily, just as strongly as the one for gay marriage.
Personally, I believe marriage is a cultural institution, not a civic one. I think that the government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is - and stick to 'civil unions'. Two people can declare themselves to be married - it's their choice of identity. Others can chose to reject that if they want. The government gets involved only for legal issues, much like you're declared to be in a 'civil union' if you live together with someone for long enough, irrespective of your marriage status.
But who gets to decide whether a civil union couple can file tax jointly or not?
Each reporting adult filer in the household would link to a household TIN (like a EIN) and it would be done in aggregate. The decision to file separately would be based on the dilution of deductions as number of filers increased, relative financial independence desired, or risk of incurring the tax liabilities of others in the household.
(That would discourage roommates from filing jointly if they desired financial independence to avoid abusing the model)
For most of history it's been both a religious and a civic institution (marriage is an institution, a wedding is a ceremony commemorating, or effecting depending on the model, the entrance into that institution), both in nature and effect, with the civilian/legal effect regarding property rights and inheritance arguably most often the predominant aspect; the idea that the religious and the civic domains are fundamentally separate rather than deeply linked is a relatively modern innovation, along with which came completely separate religious and civic institutions of marriage in the places where that separation between the religious and the civic domains has been given effect.
You have to ask this question in the context of legal history. In English common law, from which United States law on marriage is derived, marriage was basically a legal contract stripping women of most of their rights and transferring them to the husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
Common misconception, but not really true. For most of history, marriage for normal people was rarely a ceremony _at all_. The state and church usually recognised marriage to greater or lesser degrees, but most people were deemed married because they were recognised by their community as being married. Formal religious or civic marriage ceremonies were mostly for the upper classes. Gradually they spread out among classes (especially in Catholic countries), but in many places common-law marriage remained acceptable until surprisingly recently.
In England, for instance, common-law marriage wasn't abolished until 1753. It wasn't abolished in Scotland until 2006. In America, a number of states _still_ recognise common-law marriage.
And even where marriage registration has long been required for recognition, this has often been purely civil. People in some European countries, if they want a church marriage, have to get 'married' twice; the civil authorities don't recognise the church one, and this has been the case for a long time (I think since the French Revolution for France).
> Why can't we just decide who we are going to get married to, and simply fill out some paperwork to declare (not ask permission) ourselves married and notify the government of our status change.
If you live in a common-law marriage state, you can. You don't even have to file any paperwork (though it'll cause you trouble traveling if you don't get it formally recognised).
> Asking permission is obscene and defeats the entire purpose of declaring it a "fundamental right".
When you get legally married, you're not really asking permission. You're informing the state of the fact. For practical reasons, most modern countries won't recognise your marriage unless you do this (though, as above, some US states will). But you're not really asking permission as such.
Next I wonder, what are the arguments against marriage for polygamists? And if I can marry several people (how many - 100 perhaps?), do I have to prove I love them before they get the right to live in my country?
This "comparison methodology" that the researchers presume to get around that - does not get around the problem of small sample sizes nor does it eliminate other variables such as social attitudes because the legalization of gay marriage itself is linked to changing social attitudes towards homosexuality.
I am glad that gay suicides are down, but to say it's definitely linked to gay marriage is premature and unfounded. This research seems to be pseudo science in the service of a political agenda.
For a lot of lgbtq teens who are having a rough time because the sliver of the world that they live in is against them at every turn, the hope that the wider world is more accepting and that they'll have equal rights and protections, that they'll just be able to live, has to provide hope to some. Same-sex marriage is just another rung in the ladder of progress and every step up that ladder is going to be the tipping point for someone to decide to live instead of checking out.
If the study had only considered only teens who came out, that could have ignored those who are depressed of being gay but not yet come out.
1: https://newrepublic.com/article/113176/science-loneliness-ho...