Same-sex Marriage: Why Legal Change Means Social Change
By Bryce J. Christensen and William C. Duncan
An opinion journalist recently announced that his previous strongly expressed opposition to redefining marriage so as to include same-sex couples had been abandoned.1 He explained that he had thought that redefining marriage would cause quick and catastrophic changes to the social strength of marriage. Now that some states have embraced �gay marriage� he has not been able to discern any serious problems for the institution of marriage or the family, so he thinks it would be fine to move ahead with the social experiment.
This kind of thinking is not uncommon. In fact, many people reasonably wonder how changes in the law, especially the law related to family, could have any impact on individual behavior. This question accords with much individual experience. It is probably somewhat rare, for instance, for individuals (except perhaps at the margins) to think about legal rules before proposing marriage or before deciding to have a child.
So, does the law a state adopts affect the family? Asked a different way, does the law merely reflect reality or might it interact with other variables to change reality?
In the marriage context, we have a very good example from which to learn. In 1969, California replaced previous legal standards for divorce so that couples would be granted divorce if they merely alleged that they could not get along. This legal change spread eventually to every state (Utah in 1987). Did the law have an effect on social realities? Of course it did. Economist Douglas Allen and family scholar Maggie Gallagher concluded after a careful study: �The best evidence suggests no-fault divorce increases the divorce rate on the order of 10 percent.�2 This, of course, is significant but is hardly the only effect. Dr. Allen points out that other studies demonstrate changes in �labor force participation for women, total hours of work for women, and a feminization of poverty�3 as well as rising ages at marriage that are attributable to the change in divorce laws.4
Legal scholar Rebecca Probert notes another example in English law regarding cohabitation. The legal changes were actually quite slight but they created a widespread perception that cohabitation would have the same legal effect as marriage and that perception, in turn, led to dramatic increases in both the rate of cohabitation and the acceptance as a practice. 5
Obviously, the mechanism of change in behavior and attitudes affected by legal changes can be complex and varied. A recent book on dating among �emerging adults� by sociologists Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker provides an important framework for understanding the ways in which individuals may make decisions about marriage, sexuality and family life. They note that we respond to market-like forces (availability, competition, etc.) as well as �social scripts.�
Loading ...
The “nothing so terrible has happened” argument shows the ignorance of the person making the argument. Marriage is the social institution that connects generations to each other. It is unreasonable to expect the most significant consequences in the first five years. It will take a full generation, a full thirty years or more, before society will feel the full impact of redefining marriage.
When a person says “nothing so terrible has happened in Canada or Massachusetts” they are revealing that they don’t really understand the social significance of marriage, or how social systems actually work.
I think our nation’s commitment to equal treatment of citizens under the law is more important than marriage’s definition-du-jour. I think it’s great that people get married, but I don’t distinguish between straight couples and gay couples when I think of the pros and cons of getting married.
As a nation, we’re stronger when we treat all citizens with equal respect, and equal legal rights.
Apparently this guy did not do his homework. There is mountains of evidence that SSM is causing damage to society. If he has not discerned any problems then he simply is not paying attention.
@Sean Homophiles are indeed given equal treatment without the need of faux marriage. It is not inequality to treat things differently when they are inherently different. I certainly don’t treat a circle equal to a square when I need a square in the equation. Same with marriage – it needs a person of each sex.
“There is mountains of evidence that SSM is causing damage to society. If he has not discerned any problems then he simply is not paying attention.”
And yet there is no public record of all the damage being caused. That seems odd to me. You would think reputable journals, political magazines and scholars would be abuzz about all the damage that’s being done because of legal same-sex marriage!
Jennifer: This person did not take into account the long term effect of the damage of SSM. He failed to do his research. If he had he would have seen the damage being done in the Scandanavian countries and in the Netherlands. If he had gone to the Massresistance website he would have already seen the damage in Massachusetts.
“Marriage is the social institution that connects generations to each other. It is unreasonable to expect the most significant consequences in the first five years. It will take a full generation, a full thirty years or more, before society will feel the full impact of redefining marriage.”
Yeah, we should legalize same-sex marriage and in 30 years, if things turn out bad, we’ll just make it illegal again. Just like we’re outlawing divorce. We tried no-fault divorce, it broke up way too many families, so obviously we’re banning divorce.