To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

PFAW: "Census Bureau’s Own Research Staff Demonstrated That Airbrushing Out Same-Sex Marriages Distorts Data"

Link: People For the American Way

 

 

Petition urges reversal of policy to falsify Census data

The Census Bureau reported this week that in completing the 2010 Census, it will ‘edit’ the data from same-sex couples who accurately report that they are legally married, and that it will instead re-classify them as “unmarried partners,” the same procedure used by the Bureau during the 2000 census, when no states yet recognized same-sex couples as legally married. That kind of “editing” undermines the Bureau’s mission to provide accurate and high quality data about the U.S. population, and according to a paper on the Bureau’s own website, creates a distorted picture of same-sex households.

“There are legally married same-sex couples in the United States,” said People For the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert. “It’s a fact that can’t be ‘edited’ out of existence. It’s time to stop faking the data for the sake of people who want to pretend that same-sex married couples don’t exist.”

The paper, “Unbinding the Ties: Edit Effects of Marital Status on Same Gender Couples,” was written in 1999 by two members of the Census Bureau’s Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, Population Division. The authors looked at data from the 2000 Census “dress rehearsal,” and drew the following conclusions about the effects of “editing” the responses of same-sex couples from “married” to “unmarried partners”:

“it is clear from the examination of [the] unedited data that households which are identified as ‘married couple’ same gender households are a distinct group from households which are identified as unmarried partner same gender households. By combining these households . . . we [that is, the Census Bureau] are distorting the picture for both of these groups of households.” (Emphasis added.)

And that was before there were same-sex couples recognized in any states as legally married — continuing to “edit” out married gay and lesbian couples in the next Census would create an even greater distortion.

People For the American Way has launched a petition urging the Census Bureau to reverse its policy.

[jw]

Opinion: "Making same-sex marriages count"

Link: Los Angeles Times
by Gary J. Gates

Excerpt:

When same-sex couples wed in California and Massachusetts, they do so believing that their marriage licenses mean that their relationships finally count in the eyes of the state. Unfortunately, they won't count in the eyes of the U.S. Census Bureau.

According to its mission statement, the Census Bureau "serves as the leading source of quality data about the nation's people." Well, not all of the people, it turns out. Census Bureau procedures essentially hide legally married lesbian and gay couples by altering their truthful responses about their relationship.

The Census Bureau argues that the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman for all purposes related to federal regulations -- prohibits it from recognizing same-sex marriages. For the 2010 survey, the bureau intends to maintain the policy established in 2000, whereby it will edit the responses of married same-sex couples. Same-sex spouses will be reported as "unmarried partners" in all census tabulations.

In 2000, before same-sex couples could legally marry anywhere in the U.S., the argument could be made that the bureau was changing responses to something more accurate. (In fact, that change was, at the time, viewed by many as an improvement. In 1990, the bureau edited the sex of any same-sex spouses, thereby transforming the same-sex couple into a different-sex married couple.) Rather than completely editing them out of the data, the 2000 census included them in counts of same-sex "unmarried partners." Although that decision might have been the right one then, conditions have changed.

Today, same-sex couples can marry in California and Massachusetts, and these marriages are recognized in New York. That means more than one in five Americans lives in a state that recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples. Yet none of these legally recognized couples will show up in publicly released census tabulations. They will all be relegated to an unmarried status.

[...]

Decisions about data collection should not be driven by political and value-laden judgments about marriage. They should be grounded in the demographic and legal realities of this nation. Regardless of how one feels about the recognition of gay men and lesbians, all sides in these debates could benefit from accurate data. Taking steps to improve data quality on same-sex couples would permit scholars, policymakers and the American public to form opinions based on facts instead of anecdotes and stereotypes.

Gary J. Gates is a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law and the coauthor of "The Gay and Lesbian Atlas."

[jw]

Commentary: "Gay Marriage is Natural"

Link: Huffington Post
by Paul Zack; co-written by Ken grimes

Excerpt:

[...]

It turns out that both marriage and homosexuality are, in fact, both common for our species. As research at Center for Neuroeconomics Studies in California has shown, human attachment behaviors depend on the same 'bonding' molecule called oxytocin, also found in other mammals. When the human brain releases oxytocin, we immediately begin to care about those around us: family, friends, and even complete strangers. This effect is so unfocused, that we also care about nonhumans, too, including dogs, cats or stranded whales. We name our cars, and cry when we sell our houses.

Oxytocin is also the basis for virtuous behaviors towards strangers. Researchers in my lab have shown that in humans, oxytocin promotes trustworthiness, generosity, and empathy. These virtues make the free societies we live in possible -- without oxytocin we would need Big Brother monitoring every human interaction to eliminate crime, cruelty, and selfishness.

Because the oxytocin attachment system is a blunt instrument, it is not surprising that we see long-term same-sex partners. Our highly evolved, inherently flexible, human attachment system allows us to have a morality -- a love beyond the self -- that far exceeds anything found in our mammal relatives. So, long-term attachment between genders and within a gender should be viewed as natural as the care and affection we quite easily show to those around us.

Paul J. Zak is Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, CA. His new book is Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, published by Princeton University Press. Ken Grimes is a writer based in London, UK.

[jw]

'Church of Ireland may accept gay marriages'

Link: Belfast Telegraph

Excerpt:

Church of Ireland primate Alan Harper has controversially acknowledged that a time may come when homosexual unions are officially sanctioned within his denomination.

[...]

Addressing the Anglicans in World Mission conference in Swanwick, England, Archbishop Harper said if evidence came to light that homosexuality is biologically predetermined then the church would have to reflect that fact.

"It has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural," the Archbishop told the conference.

"If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church."

[...]

[jw]

Political Scientists Stick With New Orleans, Face Boycott

Link: Inside Higher Ed

Excerpt:

The American Political Science Association moved its 2006 annual meeting from the original site of San Francisco, where hotels were then in the midst of protracted disagreements with unions, to Philadelphia.

On Friday, the association announced that it was rejecting calls to move its 2012 meeting from New Orleans. Many gay and lesbian political scientists had called for the convention to move because Louisiana has adopted one of the most stringent bans on gay marriage, applying the ban also to any proposed legal relationship such as civil unions that could be seen as resembling marriage. Supporters of moving the meeting said that it is not safe for gay academics or their partners to travel to cities where their relationships have no legal status. A boycott is now being organized of the 2012 meeting.

The association announced that, in a shift, it would in the future consider state-level actions when evaluating sites for meetings. Association policy has been to consider local conditions (such as the labor strife San Francisco had experienced), but not state policies. However, the association stopped short of saying it would stay away from states with anti-gay constitutional amendments.

A letter to political scientists from Dianne Pinderhughes, a professor at the University of Notre Dame who is president of the association, stressed that state policies need not eliminate a city from contention to host a meeting. “[C]onditions at the local level can mitigate these circumstances and ... communities hosting APSA meetings will be expected to assure the civil rights and safety of all APSA members,” she wrote.

In addition, she pledged that the 2012 meeting would feature “scholarship and intellectual engagement” on such issues as “same-sex unions” and “the economic development of meeting cities.” Some academics have been encouraging their associations to meet in New Orleans as a way of supporting the city’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

The statements about considering state policies and scholarship on the issues are nothing more than “a crumb thrown by the association,” said Daniel R. Pinello, a professor of government at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York. Pinello, author of America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Cambridge University Press), said he would view it as dangerous to attend a meeting in New Orleans with his partner since, if either were to be hospitalized, the other would have no rights at all.

[...]

Many of those speaking out on the issue have noted feeling conflicted about how to balance the issues of equal treatment for gay scholars vs. the desire of others to support New Orleans. A blog called Siting APSA Annual Meetings features a number of letters backing a move of the meeting, but noting how complicated the question can be. One letter — from Julie Novkov, president of the sexuality and politics division of the association — notes that New Orleans has a rich gay tradition and that “going to New Orleans for our annual meeting could be a political and economic act supporting the rebuilding of a city with a long and proud African American history.”

However, she comes out against the idea of staying in New Orleans, saying that the association makes political choices in locating its meeting, and that it is wrong to do so in a city that would be viewed as inherently hostile to many gay scholars. Citing the names of some of those who would stay away, she writes that she couldn’t imagine a meeting without “many other well known and not so well known voices that have been vitally important to me as a scholar, a teacher, and a member of the profession for many years. That conference, stripped of so many critical and political voices, would not represent the American Political Science Association for me. I hope that conference does not happen.”

[jw]

Same-Sex Couples Offer Insight Into Gender and Marriage

Link: New York Times

Excerpt:

For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships. 

The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved. 

Next week, California will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, reigniting the national debate over gay marriage. But relationship researchers say it also presents an opportunity to study the effects of marriage on the quality of all relationships.

[...]

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.” 

Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.

[...]

Same-sex couples were also less likely to develop an elevated heartbeat and adrenaline surges during arguments. And straight couples were more likely to stay physically agitated after a conflict.

“When they got into these really negative interactions, gay and lesbian couples were able to do things like use humor and affection that enabled them to step back from the ledge and continue to talk about the problem instead of just exploding,” said Robert W. Levenson, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

Dr. Levenson says this is good news for all couples.

“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”

[jw]

"Wrap-Up: Anthropology and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate"

Link: Box Turtle Bulletin
by Jim Burroway

Excerpt:

As I said last week, I wanted to offer a few closing thoughts on Glenn Stanton and Patrick Chapman’s online debate on anthropology and same-sex marriage. (You can read them in order here, here, here, and here.) But first, I want to thank Glenn and Patrick for their eagerness to participate in this fruitful and substantive debate. I’m especially grateful to Glenn for his willingness to appear as a guest author on this web site. I am familiar with the same-sex marriage debates that he and John Corvino conduct across the country, and I hope someday they will come to my neck of the desert. Glenn and Patrick were very gracious to me and to each other in the emails we exchanged back and forth behind the scenes, and I look forward to more public and private discussions with both of them in the future.

In my closing thought, I’d like to touch on three things:

1. The problem of language — How language itself influences how we see the world, and shapes how we communicate what we see. 
2. The difference between sex and gender — not everyone gets it, not even professional social scientists. 
3. And why anthropology? — How is anthropology relevant to the same-sex marriage debate?

[...]

Actually, when we’re talking about same-sex marriage, I don’t believe we are talking about a moral problem, but a political one. But I recognize that most opponents to same-sex marriage don’t see it that way. So we end up talking about morality and politics, and we often throw in developmental psychology, hormonal and genetic research, sociology and public opinion polls, and now anthropology. Of all these topics, it does seem to me that anthropology is an odd proxy in these debates. But this is where we are, so let me offer these thoughts.

It’s good to know that modern Western civilization is far from the first to grapple with the place of same-sex relationships in society. I was fascinated to learn about the Indonesian Bujis’ concept of calabai, calalai, and bissu as genders. Their gender construct is very different from our own — foreign even — even if their understanding of sex remains largely the same. But we’re not Bujis, nor do we consider the Tongan gender construct of fakaleitis or the Samoan concept of fa’afafine sufficient to describe our sense of ourselves in western culture.

We’re Americans. We like to define things for ourselves. We don’t find it pleasing to shoehorn our experiences into other cultures’ constructs. It’s very interesting to see how other cultures have dealt with the same issues that we have, but in the end our solutions will be ones most familiar to our own experiences, not those of the xaniths of Oman.

While gender is most certainly an important topic in our society when we talk about issues facing transgender people (for example), I think it is largely moot when we’re discussing same-sex marriage. And since some cultures around the world have accommodated same-sex relationships as a culturally sanctioned entity, then what we’re talking about is not all that groundbreaking. I just don’t think we will be creating different classes of gender to accommodate it as other cultures have, simply because we no longer ascribe sanctioned roles to particular genders. If we did, then we would very quickly come up with Mr. Stanton’s “6.5 billion different genders”, which would render the whole idea of gender meaningless both as a definition and as a concept. Because gender is still too vital a concept for other topics, I don’t see that happening. And besides, in 21st-century America it’s just not our way.

See also:
Round 2: Stanton Replies to Chapman
Round 2: Chapman Replies to Stanton
Glenn T. Stanton Responds to Professor Patrick Chapman
An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s “Anthropological” Report on Marriage

 

[jw]

Round 2: Stanton Replies to Chapman on Anthropological Understanding of Marriage

Link: Box Turtle Bulletin
by Glenn T. Stanton

Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton offers his final rebuttal to anthropologist Patrick Chapman in their exchange about anthropological views of marriage. The full text is at Box Turtle Bulletin.

In case you missed it, a reminder that Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry debated Stanton in 2005, during which Stanton struck many of the same themes. Listen to streamed audio of that debate or download it here. Or listen via the player below (Flash required.)

 

Excerpt:

Editor’s note: Last week, we began a discussion on anthropological views of marriage, with special attention to its implications on same-sex marriage. Patrick Chapman, biological anthropologist and author of the forthcoming book, “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: 2008) began the discussion. That post was followed by a response from Glenn T. Stanton, director of Global Family Formation Studies at Focus On the Family and co-author (with Dr. Bill Maier) of Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (InterVarsity Press: 2004). This past Monday, Dr. Chapman kicked off round 2 of the discussion, and today Mr. Stanton offers his rebuttal. I’ll return next week with some final thoughts.

I am happy to engage this discussion another round and am thankful to Box Turtle and Professor Chapman for their continued participation.

I see the headline on this exchange as “Anthropologist and Evangelical Researcher Disagree on Much”, which sounds like a good Onion headline. But I do believe this has been an opportunity to let two people with very different views carefully explain their positions and allow others to eavesdrop into and comment on the conversation. That is worthwhile. As we close this exchange, I want to thank Dr. Chapman for his clarity and kindness. And to Box Turtle for hosting the exchange in a very professional, remarkably fair manner. I say that with all sincerity.

Predisposed Bias?
Let me start by addressing an accusation he makes about Focus on the Family at the close of his last post. He says:

The organization, generalizing from Stanton’s methodology and the recent article that began our conversation, is more concerned about fitting anthropological studies into its predisposed bias than an honest appraisal and reporting of the research. (emphasis mine)

Actually NOT doing this is exactly what prompted me to write the paper under discussion. As I explained here in my first response to Chapman, I went to read leading anthropologists a few years ago on their explanation of marriage in light of gender and sex. Let me say this very clearly: I did not find what I went to the texts expecting to find. I went to this literature expecting to find and truly hoping to learn about the great diversity of gender-manifestations I always hear about from my many Women’s Studies friends.

[...]

Sex and gender
Chapman concludes from reading my response that I do “not comprehend the implications of, or difference between, sex and gender” and then proceeds to explain it to me. Goodness, anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to our national discussion on sex-roles over the past few decades gets the difference. My problem is I just don’t accept all the rhetoric that Gender- and Woman-Studies Departments accept and blather as established truth. I think this new understanding of “gender” is a cultural construct, which I will explain in just a bit.

Chapman then goes on to carefully explain to me that it is a mistake to assume that “all biological males are gendered masculine and all biological females are gendered feminine.” I know what the sentence means, but I don’t know what it means in practice.

[...]

Name-calling and other things…
I was struck in both of Chapman’s responses his ease and confidence in making conclusions for me about what I believe. Professor Chapman, I am many things, but I am neither a naïve realist nor an ethnocentrist. If I were, I would find no value in the work of the anthropologists, for their specialty is explaining to us differing human experiences in diverse cultures.

You also explain, ala Stephanie Coontz, that historically “love is irrelevant” to marriage. This is the silliest thing she says in a book full of silly things. If she wants to say that love has not always been the sole or primary force in marriage that it is today, that point is hard to dispute. But to believe that marriage has always been a relationship solely about either class-cohesion or -advancement or about the transfer of land or material goods is deeply mistaken. The human heart didn’t grow warm in just the past 150 years. It has always felt and reacted to love, rejection and developed jealousy. These have always played a part of human relationships, including marriage and parenting, because it is profoundly human.

[...]

Children and Well-Being
Let me end with what I think is the most important point: what this means for children of tomorrow.

First, I did not say that children do better in two-parent homes than single-parent homes. You put those words in my mouth and denounced it as a non-sequitur because SS homes are two-parent. What I do say in many of my books is that children who grow up with their own mother and father do markedly better in every important measure of well-being, compared to their peers growing up in single, cohabiting, step- or divorced homes. Children in SS homes are not, but definition, growing up in homes with their own mother and father.

He mentions the Lamotrek as a society where “same-sex couples” raise children with “no evidence of harm to the children or society.”

[jw]

Round 2: Chapman Replies to Stanton On Anthropological Understanding of Marriage

Link: Box Turtle Bulletin

Editor's Note: Box Turtle Bulletin has invited anthropologist Patrick M. Chapman to critique a report by Focus on the Family claiming anthropological support for mixed-sex-only marriage. This second of Chapman's pieces is very long; no excerpts can adequately convey its breadth. Visit Box Turtle Bulletin to read the full article.  Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson debated Glenn Stanton in 2005. Listen to streamed audio of that debate or download it here.

Excerpt:

Editor’s note: Last week, we began a discussion on anthropological views of marriage, with special attention to its implications on same-sex marriage. Patrick Chapman, biological anthropologist and author of the forthcoming book, “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: 2008) began the discussion. That post was followed by a response from Glenn T. Stanton, director of Global Family Formation Studies at Focus On the Family and co-author (with Dr. Bill Maier) of Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (InterVarsity Press: 2004). This week, Dr. Chapman replies and begins round 2 of the discussion. 

The editors of Box Turtle Bulletin requested that Glenn Stanton and I continue our discussion about marriage. I recognize that Stanton is at a disadvantage in this discussion because I essentially have the “home-field advantage:” his comments will come under much greater scrutiny by Box Turtle Bulletin’s readers than mine. As such, I credit Stanton for his willingness to participate further. However, as an anthropologist I remain in disagreement with his “anthropological” assessment of same-sex marriage. 

In a limited space and with limited time, it is difficult to address all of the issues raised in Stanton’s response to my critique. I am concerned about his unscientific methodology, disagree with his comments about the American Anthropological Association, find inadequate, given the context, his explanation for including Colin Turnbull’s biographical information, and find unconvincing his dismissal of anthropological authority: he does not consult artists when trying to rebut definitions of marriage! However, in this round of the discussion Glenn Stanton and I have agreed to focus attention on two important themes: the distinction between gender and sex and the definition of marriage. 

[...]

[jw]

Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton Responds to Professor Patrick Chapman on Marriage and Anthropology

Link: Box Turtle Bulletin

Editor's Note: This is the response of Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton to yesterdays' post, "An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s “Anthropological” Report on Marriage." As with Professor Chapman's post, Stanton's is too long to be adequately excerpted here. See the Box Turtle Bulletin blog for the complete text. Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson debated Glenn Stanton in 2005. Also see the comments appended to today's post at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Excerpt:

Editor’s Note: Yesterday, we published Dr. Patrick Chapman’s critique of Glenn T. Stanton’s white paper, “Differing definitions of marriage and family” (PDF: 80KB/10 pages) Today, we are proud to present a guest post by Glenn Stanton in response to Dr. Chapman’s critique. Glenn T. Stanton is the director of Global Family Formation Studies at Focus On the Family. He is also the co-author (with Dr. Bill Maier) of Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (InterVarsity Press: 2004).

In considering this exchange with Professor Chapman, I think of that popular VISA commercial, but with a different spin:

• Trading snippy jabs with an opponent on the marriage question: 96 cents,
• Engaging in spirited, thoughtful discussion on a deeply important and controversial issue with a serious opponent: priceless.

That is how I feel about this exchange and I am thankful for Box Turtle’s invitation to engage Professor Chapman on my paper comparing definitions of marriage and family used by anthropologists with those used by same-sex marriage advocates. I also greatly appreciate Dr. Chapman’s thoughtfulness and civility of response. As he said, we have exchanged notes in the past and I have enjoyed and benefited from those interactions.

Allow me to begin by explaining my intentions in writing my original report and the methodology I employed in that work.

[...]

[jw]