Blankenhorn’s logic doesn’t hang together

Posted on April 12, 2007
Filed Under Michigan | Leave a Comment

Opposition to homosexuality has long been marked by bad science. In the past, that usually meant bad psychology or even bad physiology. Today, the more common problem is bad social science, usually involving cherry-picked data about alarming social trends followed by breathtaking leaps of logic connecting these trends to same-sex marriage.

David Blankenhorn positions himself as an exception. In his new book “The Future of Marriage,” and in a recent Weekly Standard article entitled “Defining Marriage Down … Is No Way to Save It,” Blankenhorn makes the familiar argument that supporting same-sex marriage weakens marriage as a valuable social institution. But he claims to do so in way that avoids some of the simplistic analyses common in the debate, including those made by his conservative allies.

In particular, Blankenhorn criticizes Stanley Kurtz’s argument that same-sex marriage in the Netherlands and Scandinavia has caused the erosion of traditional marriage there. Blankenhorn rightly recognizes Kurtz’s causal claims to be unsupported: “Neither Kurtz nor anyone else can scientifically prove that allowing gay marriage causes the institution of marriage to get weaker,” Blankenhorn writes. “Correlation does not imply causation.” This is a refreshing concession.

But having made that concession, Blankenhorn proceeds as if it makes no difference: “Scholars and commentators have expended much effort trying in vain to wring proof of causation from the data, all the while ignoring the meaning of some simple correlations that the numbers do indubitably show.” But what can these correlations mean, if not that same-sex marriage is causally responsible for the alleged problems? What do the numbers “indubitably show”? Blankenhorn’s answer provides a textbook example of a circular argument:

“Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each other and with certain trends in behavior … . The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal relationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together. ”

In other words, what the correlations show is that these things are correlated. Not very helpful.

From there, Blankenhorn argues that if things “go together,” opposition to one is good reason for opposition to all. He attempts to illustrate by analogy:

“Find some teenagers who smoke, and you can confidently predict that they are more likely to drink than their nonsmoking peers. Why? Because teen smoking and drinking tend to hang together.” So if you oppose teenage drinking, you ought to oppose teenage smoking, because of the correlation between the two. In a similar way, if you oppose nonmarital cohabitation, single-parent parenting, or other “marriage-weakening behaviors,” you ought to oppose same-sex marriage, since they, too, “tend to hang together.” Read more….

Source: Pride Source

This is breathtakingly bad logic. The analogy sounds initially plausible because teen drinking and teen smoking are both bad things. But the things that correlate with bad things are not necessarily bad. Find some teenagers who have tried cocaine, and you can confidently predict that they are more likely to have gone to top-notch public schools than their non-cocaine-using peers. It’s not because superior education causes cocaine use. It’s because cocaine is an expensive drug, and expensive drugs tend to show up in affluent communities, which tend to have better public schools than their poor counterparts. Yet it would be ridiculous to conclude that, if you oppose teen cocaine use, you ought to oppose top-notch public education.

The whole point of noting that “correlation does not equal cause” is to acknowledge that things that “tend to hang together” are not necessarily mutually reinforcing. They are sometimes both the result of third-party causes, and even more often the result of a complex web of causes that we haven’t quite figured out yet. In any case, when babies correlate with dirty bathwater, we don’t take that as a reason for throwing out babies.

Which brings me to another significant flaw in Blankenhorn’s analysis. Even if we grant that support for same-sex marriage correlates with negative factors such as higher divorce rates, it also seems to correlate with positive factors such as higher education, greater support for religious freedom, and greater respect for women’s rights. On Blankenhorn’s logic, we ought to oppose those things as well, since they “tend to hang together” with the negative trends.

I don’t often find myself agreeing with Stanley Kurtz. But at least he seems to understand that, without the causal connections, the “negative marriage trends” argument gets no traction.
 

Same-sex partners deserve benefits

Posted on February 7, 2007
Filed Under Michigan | Leave a Comment

Another blow was delivered to same-sex couples Friday, with the state court’s decision to ban same-sex health care benefits. The ruling follows the state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage from the 2004 election —
it passed with 59 percent of the vote.

According to the court, when Michigan voters approved the ban on gay marriages, they also banned domestic partner benefits as well. During the run-up to the election, proponents of the gay marriage ban stated early and often that same-sex couples retain all the rights afforded to them. Essentially, people advocating the ban made it seem like the only thing at stake was use of the word “marriage.”

Opponents worried the broad, vague wording of the constitutional amendment (one of the absolute hardest pieces of legislation to overturn or change) could be interpreted to justify exactly the kind of decision that has come to pass — and their fears proved correct.

Nevertheless, this decision is troubling. We suspect most people who voted for the amendment were misled or simply didn’t think the amendment through. They probably did not intend to deprive Michigan citizens of their health care benefits. As many proponents said, they just wanted to “defend the sanctity of marriage.”

This new decision, reverses a 2005 decision from an Ingham County judge that said universities could provide said benefits if they so chose.

While the University of Michigan and Wayne State University have filed a brief in the case, arguing that universities are given autonomy by the state constitution and should be able to provide benefits regardless of measures against same-sex marriage, MSU released a tepid statement from President Lou Anna K. Simon that the university will, essentially, see what it can do about retaining those rights.

While this is a solid move, why didn’t MSU take similar legal steps? For a university that is arguably progressive and dedicated to preserving diversity, why are we constantly lagging behind U-M in terms of actually taking a stand? Why are we never on the front lines, fighting and standing up for causes such as this?

The argument in the brief drafted by both U-M and Wayne State was rejected, but at least they tried. While we hope MSU can find a way to preserve the heath care rights for same-sex couples on staff, it’d also be nice to see the university stand up for something every once in a while.

Unassertive statements — or worse, silence — just aren’t cutting it anymore.

Source: The State News

Rules against domestic partner health insurance

Posted on February 5, 2007
Filed Under Michigan | Leave a Comment

According to the state constitution, Michigan same-sex workers can’t get health insurance for their partners, a court ruled. A panel of three judges stated that a ban, approved by voters in 2004 regarding same-sex marriage, affects the benefits same-sex partners would receive. This ruling came down Friday, February 2nd, in response to a lawsuit that had been filed by 21 same-sex couples employed by Kalamazoo, colleges and the state of Michigan.

The November 2004 approved ban on same-sex marriage determined that marriage is only between a man and a woman “or similiar union for any purpose,” as the official language puts it. Those vague words had opened up the door to arguments regarding domestic partner benefits. People in favor of same-sex marriage had said that the Michigan population wanted to stop gay marriage, but not the benefits same-sex partners might receive, the AP said.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that the clear prose of the marriage amendment stops employers from acknowledging same-sex partnerships for any reason.

Furthermore, the court said, “It is a cornerstone of a democratic form of government to assume that a free people act rationally in the exercise of power, are presumed to know what they want, and to have understood the proposition submitted to them in all of its implications, and by their approval vote to have determined that the proposal is for the public good and expresses the free opinion of a sovereign people,” the AP quotes.

However, a 2005 ruling coming out of Ingham County had stated same-sex partners could receive benefits from universities and governments. “Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk previously had ruled that criteria established by employers to qualify for same-sex benefits don’t recognize a ‘union’ because Michigan doesn’t allow civil unions,” according to the AP.

This new ruling now changes that older one. There will probably be an appeal resulting from this latest decision, says the AP.

Source: PrideParenting.com

Recently


Categories


Archives

free hit counter script