Friday, May 21, 2004

The gay marriage (non) threat

Stanley Kurtz routinely trots out some statistics that imply that heterosexual marriage went into decline when gay marriage was allowed in Scandivavia. But the statistics are completely bogus.

"Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged."

I don't know why the more thoughtful members of the conservative camp let this crap stand. Can't they see how stupid it makes them all look?


S.W. Anderson said...

Faith-based exertions of political power are just that; facts deemed unhelpful aren't allowed to get in the way.

So, regarding a different matter, if you're on a mission from God and being fed highly questionable information, even stuff that's ridiculous on its face, you don't let it stop you from invading a country, getting thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people killed, and running up a $200 billion tab.

I believe God never intended the blessing of faith to accurse the truth.

Kendall said...

Unfortunately, faith is a two-edged sword. On the one hand faith can lead people to do what at first seems impossible. But on the other hand, faith can lead one to ignore the realities of life. When people are making a personal choice to accept the risk that a faith-based view entails, that kind of act of courage can lead to new possibilities. However, in the realm of public policy it is not appropriate to place the welfare of the public at that kind of unnecessary risk. This is a fine distinction that many conservatives seem unable to make.