It never ceases to amaze me, the deep shadows and thin straws
used by those who would project their version of morality and life-style
choices upon others in order to deny the constitutional right of marriage to
same-sex couples.
Attorney Gene Schaerr authored a commentary, posted on the
website of the Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, outlining an
amicus brief he had filed with the Supreme Court, wherein he claims that
allowing same sex marriage will (a) devalue heterosexual marriage, (b) reduce
the percentage of women who are married, and (c) increase the number of induced
abortions.
Mr. Schaerr is best known as the lead attorney hired by the
State of Utah to defend Amendment
3 of the Utah Constitution, which defined marriage as existing only between one
man and one woman. The State of Utah ,
not surprisingly, lost the appeal, and same sex marriage is now legal in Utah .
(I posted my reply to Utah ’s
court filing on this blog.)
Certainly Mr. Schaerr is entitled to his personal and
religious beliefs. He is very well known for his membership in, and support of,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which opposes SSM on religious
grounds. However, he is not entitled to his own facts, nor should he be allowed
to use those beliefs to deny any American his or her constitutional rights.
To quote Attorney Schaerr:
“For example, an “any-two-adults”
model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn’t need a
father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting.
Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and
reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Schaerr’s opinion and amicus brief,
that train left the station a long time ago. The Pew
Research Center
As quoted by The Washington Post, the PRC analysis of
Americans age 25 and older who have never been married details the following
facts. In 1960, 8% of women and 10% of men in this group have never married.
The number of never married men and women dropped slightly in 1970, to 8.5% and
9%, respectively, and has increased since; the rate in 2012 was 17% of women
and 23% of men. On the surface, this increase of unmarried women and men would
seem to support Mr. Schaerr’s arguments, but the details seem to have escaped
him. In the PRC analysis, those who are same-sex married (in those states that
allow SSM) are considered as married, and therefore are not part of the
increased number of those who have never married. I therefore respectfully
disagree with Mr. Schaerr regarding the supposed effect of same-sex marriage on
the percentage of women who never marry.
Regarding abortion, Mr. Schaerr stated in his brief that
allowing SSM will increase the number of abortions. He is statistically
incorrect; the Guttmacher Institute reports the number abortions performed in
the United States
has declined from a peak in 1981 of 29.3 per 1000 women of child-bearing age to
12.3 per 1000 in 2013. Same sex marriage was not legal in anywhere in the U.S.
in 1981, when SSM did not exist; by 2013, 37 states and the District
of Columbia legally allowed SSM. And yet the number
of abortions has fallen to historic lows. Perhaps Mr. Schaerr should go back to
school?
I think that a majority of us have longed, at one point or
another, for “the good old days,” when Mom stayed home and raised the children,
Dad worked one good-paying job, and everybody was June and Ward Cleaver happy.
Reality, however, was not always that sunny. People of color were regarded as
inferior; many women (and some men) stayed in abusive, destructive
relationships because divorce for any reason was frowned upon by society, or not
a legal option; family planning and reliable birth control were not discussed,
and women could not apply for credit without their spouse’s approval.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rise of social knowledge
of (and disgust for) spousal and child abuse, the availability of higher
education to both men and women, the availability of reliable birth control,
and the acceptance of women as men’s equal in the workplace and the home
allowed society to move forward and, albeit slowly, accept changes in the mores
of American life. (These are just a few of the changes, used only as examples.)
The actual acceptance of these changes has taken, and will continue to take,
time to become a true reality for all Americans. But as a nation, as a people,
we are moving in the right direction.
Now, as a society, we are on the cusp of another major
paradigm shift; one which I view as a positive change in America ’s
social network. When the Supreme Court rules on same sex marriage in June, it
is my hope, and my belief, that the constitutional right of all couples to marry
as they desire will become the law of the land.
As always, your opinions and comments are valued.
R.M. Hartman
Sources:
The Daily Signal http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/17/forcing-states-to-recognize-gay-marriage-could-increase-number-of-abortions/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social retrieved April 23, 2015
Pew Research Center:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/
The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/24/i-do-no-thanks-the-economics-behind-americas-marriage-decline/
Guttmacher Instutite: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html