Do Gays Want to Marry?

The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a boutique anti-gay marriage operation headed by conservative polemicist Maggie Gallagher, recently released a report which purported to estimate the number of gays and lesbians who would marry if same-sex marriage were legal.

To do this, the authors looked at the number of same-sex couples who had married where same-sex marriage was legal-specifically the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and the state of Massachusetts. They then calculated the percentage of gays that number represented depending on estimates of the size of the gay population from 1.1 to 5 percent.

They concluded that 1.9 to 4.7 percent of Belgium's gay population had married, 5.9 to 16.7 percent of Massachusetts' gay population and 2.6 to 6.3 percent of Dutch gays had married. Canadian data vary widely from province to province because marriage was legalized at different times.

But as usual with any right-wing "study" about homosexuals, there are problems with both the data and the analyses.

First of all, any report that seriously offers the possibility that only 1 or 2 percent of the population is gay or lesbian is intellectually frivolous.

Second, gay marriage has been legal for only a short time--barely five years in the Netherlands, barely three in Belgium, exactly two years in Massachusetts, and one to thre years in different parts of Canada. That is hardly enough time to give a sense of how many gays would marry once they find the man or woman they want to formally bind their lives with.

Some gays may not have even looked very hard for such a person because the possibility of legally solidifying a relationship was not available. With the availability of gay marriage the whole mental set about dating and developing a relationship changes but it takes time for that change to be absorbed and acted on.

Some couples who have been together for a long time may decide that they do not want to change things, that they are comfortable with how they have arranged their lives up to now and do not feel the need to "make as statement" as they would put it.

Better evidence of the desire for marriage among gays will be the behavior over the next 15-20 years of the generation of gays and lesbians just now coming into adulthood with the possibility of marriage available to them from the beginning.

Third, in both Europe and America, marriage for gays and lesbians offers much less than it does for heterosexuals. For instance, in the U.S. some of the main inducements of marriage are the vast array of federal legal and economic benefits--inheritable Social Security, veterans benefits, partner immigration rights, joint income tax filing, etc.

Those are not available for gay couples in Massachusetts, so pretending that gay and heterosexual marriage offer similar incentives is dishonest.

In European countries that allow gay marriage, most have not allowed gay couples to adopt children or have done so only recently. Yet the joint creation or adoption of children constitutes one of the strongest incentives for marriage. The raising of children as a joint project seems to solidify a relationship as nothing else does and increases the desirability of marriage. Yet that opportunity or incentive has been denied to European gays.

As evidence, there are data from Scandinavia suggesting that among heterosexuals a majority of first children are born to unmarried couples, but that many of those couples did eventually go on to marry after their children were born.

Fourth, although it seems almost too obvious to mention, one of the reasons for heterosexual marriage is the pressure from parents and relatives to "make it legal," or "tie the knot." Unmarried heterosexual couples hear a good deal of that urging. But how many parents or relatives of gays push them to marry their same-sex partner in the same way? Many religious and socially conservative parents and relatives can barely tolerate homosexuality, so they are hardly going to encourage their son or daughter to enter a same-sex marriage. Many gays would be marrying despite their families wishes, not because of them.

Fifth, most heterosexuals are openly heterosexual. But many gays and lesbians are not "out of the closet" in any general sense. Far fewer than half, perhaps barely a quarter are openly gay to all and sundry, so the majority of gays are not in a position to do anything as public as have a state certified marriage.

Finally, keep in mind that some gays are not allowed to marry at all. Gays and lesbians in the U.S. military are not allowed to marry. In most Protestant denominations gay and lesbian clergy may not marry and keep their jobs. Yet heterosexuals in those same positions marry in high numbers.

Are the gay marriage/heterosexual marriage comparisons valid? Of course not.

****

Author's note: This version refines language and corrects a few small errors in the print version.

20 Comments for “Do Gays Want to Marry?”

  1. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    I believe that this piece is by Paul Varnell, but as of this posting there is no author identification. Good piece, though.

  2. posted by Maggie Gallagher on

    Of course its hard to produce good data in ideological environemnents. This is one of the reasons we sent this study to Gary Gates one of the nation’s top demographers for review before publication. He thinks the numbers we came up with are reasonable, given the data that is available. We were also very careful not to draw conclusions about the future from such preliminary data. But you can judge for yourself here:

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf

    Thanks for sharing your own views on this work. Maggie

  3. posted by Casey on

    One angle that I have yet to see really brought out is this; what does it really matter what the objective “demand” for marriage is, if it is the right thing to do? While this may seem specious, give some thought to this reality. In some ways slavery is a paralelle to the situation – after years, generations of enslavement, it is a fact (though not one often mentioned) that many slaves preferred the life they knew to that which they didn’t – freedom was frightening, and in some cases, you practically had to force a person into it. You can argue, thus, that the demand for freedom was not absolute, and in fact may have been less than some would have expected. Would it have been right for slaveowners to look at that, and somehow extrapolate that owning another person was morally acceptable? Of course not. Slavery is morally unacceptable, no matter who tries to accept it. Denying marriage equality is just as immoral, no matter how many gays wouldn’t take advantage of it.

  4. posted by Regan DuCasse on

    I am a black, straight woman, and I support what this article speaks of, as well as the opinion of Casey.

    I once wrote Ms. Gallagher and got a tepid, non answer to the historical context of marriage for minorities in this country.

    To take the facts further-in the days after the Brown vs. Brd. of Ed decision, white Southerners main concern was black sexuality and it’s impact on their lives.

    In their minds, social integration would lead to ‘unnatural’ congress between, especially black males and white females.

    But with the firm belief that black males are aggressive, sexually immoral and irresponsible.

    Legislatures rallied in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to ban marriage between black women and black men. And such bans were passed that black opposite sex couples could not marry.

    This was accomplished by gathering rrecords that revealed low marriage and high out of wedlock birthrates among blacks. Adding fuel to the belief that low moral values among blacks, and low respect for marriage among them, justified Jim Crow.

    It is in this historical context, that gays and lesbians share with blacks in America.

    Color was a means of achieving Jim Crow.

    But if gays and lesbians bore a physical mark, their fate would be sealed the same way.

    To this day, low marriage rates and high out of wedlock births remain among blacks.

    It would be accurate to attribute this to the legacy of Jim Crow that economic, educational and social inequity has rendered many blacks ineligible to be good spouses and parents to adequately provide for their loved ones.

    Young gays and lesbians are NOT supported in their budding relationships, nor urged to marry.

    The elimination of Jim Crow, seems to have come to late for many black families.

    Lack of family and social support for monogamy among gays and lesbians, contributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS and high rates of destructive behavior in gay teens.

    M. Gallagher knows nothing of what she speaks.

    And she seems to hope that this early and ridiculous study is proof that gay people are uninterested in marriage. Because saying before they were UNFIT, has the ring of bigotry to it.

    Her previous statements though, in her usual articles and other media, are impossibly conceited.

    Gay people are different from black people in social history.

    But not by much.

    The parallels are legitimate and in many cases gays and lesbians have enough indignities and violations to list that are bad enough.

    I very tired of the Maggie Gallaghers of this country, just like segregationists, pontificating on the motives and abilities of gay people.

    Without really caring what gay people think or say, let alone what they are obligated and needful of doing in marriage for their loved ones.

  5. posted by Regan DuCasse on

    Most agree that marriage, and it’s attendant hopes and benefits and responsibilities-enable most people to grow, stay healthier and generates goodwill.

    I mean if society considers this institution good enough for convicted felon inmates, it logically follows that it’s good for free, contributing and productive gay people.

    Marriage as we know it, won’t be changed fundamentally by gay couples partaking.

    The definition of marriage won’t change.

    Just the definition of non related consenting adults.

    Why not contribute to the health and well being of gay couples and their children?

    If Ms. Gallagher agrees that married parents are better than non married ones, she has to agree that gay parents be included.

    Where is the downside to that?

    Where is the downside in taking the stress from the EXTENDED family. Who may need the gay couple in their family to help in a crisis.

    Isn’t that what it’s all about?

  6. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    Well, aren’t we getting respectable, with Maggie visiting and all.

    Aside from the questionable validity of such studies, the logic of the conclusion we are expected to draw escapes me. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: Would Maggie accept her own right to marry being contingent on how many of her neighbors wish to marry? Of course not. Marriage is a fundamental human right, and is not properly up to a vote outside the two people marrying. I am in love, and my man loves me, and we wish to marry, and we are not hanging on the latest statistics to make up our minds.

    There’s another massive bit of illogic at the base of Maggie’s whole project. If so few gay people want to marry, and there are as few of us as she supposes, it is hard to fathom how we can be such a threat to Western civilization. We must be some potent poison. Such a lot of rubbish.

  7. posted by Casey on

    Yes, good to see you again, Maggie. You might actually remember me – I was the student who stood up at Pomona College two years ago, when you raised exactly this sort of point – sans data, however sketchy – in a debate against Jonathan Rauch. You kept saying that gays don’t really want to be married, that they dislike the institution and do not respect the family – Rauch, you were quite blunt, was the exception. Now, my request, which you dodged that day and have never yet addressed, was very simple; “how do you account for me?” I am a young gay woman who has come of age with the possibility of marriage equality held out just beyond my grasp, and like many of my straight friends, I want it and all the responsibility it confers. The only way I know anything about the radical ideologies you attribute to me as being “what gays think” comes from having read some gay history, because that’s all that really is, history. Once more, Ms. Gallagher, I ask you – how do you account for an entire generation of gays and lesbians like me, who will someday defy everything you believe about “what gays want”?

  8. posted by Timothy Kincaid on

    If I understand the “statistics” correctly, between 6 and 17 percent of gay residents of Massachussetts married during a time span of two years. For simplicity, let’s say 7% per year.

    What is the marriage rate for heterosexuals? I was unable to quickly find such a number. So let’s do a quick and dirty calculation.

    Let’s assume that 100% of heteros marry once and for simplicity all at the same age. A quick glance at the national demographics shows that roughly 2.5% of persons between ages 19 and 59 are any particular age (ie 2.5 of marriage age people are age 27). Thus we would expect that 2.5% of marriage age people will get married each year. (Taking away the “all in the same year” would allow fluctuations. But assuming that they would be both up and down, the average would still remain at 2.5% of adults)

    Any single annual marriage rate for gay marriage that exceeds 2.5% is actually over the expected rate for 100% desire for marriage. We could argue that at 7% gays are resounding in favor of marriage.

    Of course, this doesn’t consider the large number of people who were waiting anxiously which skewed the number higher. But if Gallager is going ignore social factors, so can I.

  9. posted by Chairm on

    If the homosexual share of the adult population is greater than 2%, then the share of married homosexual adults is far lower than discussed in the post at the top of this thread.

    Should SSM be merged with marriage, state recognition of marriage will be replaced by state recognition of something else. It is that alternative thing that may be attractive to the proportionately few homosexual adults who live in same-sex households. Only a small portion of such households convert to SSM, civil union, registered partnership, domestic partnership, or such alternative statuses.

    The demand is purely political and ideological and is hardly sufficient for the changes being advocated by SSM proponents.

  10. posted by Casey on

    Chairm – each of those gay couples who you so quickly dismiss as irrelevant involves real people, with the same needs and desires you have. Many – 1 in 5 – of these couples, according to the 2000 US census, are raising children. Many are growing older, and anticipating what might happen when one partner dies, and the other is left without Social Security benefits, or forced to sell the home they have created together because of the estate tax setting in. These are just a few examples of why the civil institution of marriage in America is significant. Ideologically, though, I take issue with your claim that the fundamental equality and liberty of a small number of people should ever be denied. Tell me, would you ever say it was okay for the government to knowingly murder a single person? For them to steal the property, without any sort of due process, from a single person? I doubt it, because these things are wrong, no matter how few people they impact. Like it or not, the same principle applies. I personally do not like that death-row inmates are permitted marriage after murdering scores of people, but I acknowledge that to deny them this life-giving, fundamental right is unjust, and the desire to do so springs from my desire for vengeance. Why do you want to deny gays this same right?

  11. posted by maggie gallagher on

    I don’t think, just for the record, that there is any conclusion one logically must draw from this. And those who’ve read the brief will see that, I think.

    This data can be used in a number of ways. Maggie

  12. posted by Justin Bunde on

    Could you email me the answer to why gays want to marry?

  13. posted by Chairm on

    Casey, the low participation rate is in same-sex households is not answered by your comment.

    The low conversion rate of such households to a formalized relationship — such as those I mentioned — is not answered by your comment.

    Reciprocal Beneficiares based on the trust relationship via affidavit is appropriate for the one-sex alternative to marriage. The demand that you think is being denied is for State approval of what society does not approve. Even within the homosexual population, what you want approval for exists on the margins.

    Is SSM something you want to promote via the government? If yes, what is the purpose of a preferential status for such a one-sex arrangement? If there is very low actual demand for what you want to promote, then, are you basically claiming that if even one single-sexed pair desired preferential status, society must merge SSM with marriage? Really.

  14. posted by Blanca Rodriguez on

    Which countries allow homosexuals to marry?

  15. posted by Chairm on

    And which democratic countries prohibit same-sex households? Most have registeries of some sort. And these are voluntary with significant benefits. But participation rates are low nonetheless.

  16. posted by coachsappho/barb elgin, msw, lcsw-c on

    there was a time, in my grad school training (in social work), where a professor really brought home the point to the primarily white, female class, that we still carried around ‘blind spots’ or, prejudices when it came to racism. it was hard to accept, esp. when most social work students tend to be progressive-minded and compassionate.

    but, when i think of this issue (maggie’s study and marriage equality), i think that to really open up this amazing discussion, i wish maggie would admit to us, that her study is not really applicable to gays and lesbians at all (and was probably never intended to be, since we are treated so invisibly anyway). she took a risk by trying to extrapolate anything, but it was a mistake on her part – she should’ve done her homework before making such a broad statement! it smacks of trying to downplay or insult gay and lesbian couples, many of whom, despite all of the stresses they suffer (beyond what the typical straight couple does), find a way to stay together.

    but, if maggie is willing to really dialogue with us around this issue, i can forgive her extrapolations. paul’s comments 5/10/06 in reference to her study are brilliant and i felt they covered all of the major issues.

    maggie – i am on this marriage equality thing like a dog with a bone and i’m not going to let up! i am on the smartmarriages listserv and have been feeling isolated and lonely for years that help for gay relationships is hardly, if ever, brought up during their annual conferences. in fact i combed thru this year’s program and i don’t see one gay/lesbian workshop.

    also – for those of you who don’t know – the federal gov’t is about to award grants in the millions to professionals who offer marriage education/enhancement, premarital counseling and low income counseling services to heterosexual couples, the result of president Bush’s National Save Marriage Project. i would imagine gay couples would not qualify to be served by any of these programs, despite gay folk paying for them with their taxes. this is so unfair and burns me up!

    i was interviewed by a local TV station (ABC affiliate WCJB in Gainesville, FL) 2 evenings ago while at an equality florida meeting in Ocala. i plan to focus my efforts on the issue of marriage equality. it also dovetails nicely with my work (coaching glbt and glbt-friendly singles and couples).

  17. posted by coachsappho/barb elgin, msw, lcsw-c on

    there was a time, in my grad school training (in social work), where a professor really brought home the point to the primarily white, female class, that we still carried around ‘blind spots’ or, prejudices when it came to racism. it was hard to accept, esp. when most social work students tend to be progressive-minded and compassionate.

    but, when i think of this issue (maggie’s study and marriage equality), i think that to really open up this amazing discussion, i wish maggie would admit to us, that her study is not really applicable to gays and lesbians at all (and was probably never intended to be, since we are treated so invisibly anyway). she took a risk by trying to extrapolate anything, but it was a mistake on her part – she should’ve done her homework before making such a broad statement! it smacks of trying to downplay or insult gay and lesbian couples, many of whom, despite all of the stresses they suffer (beyond what the typical straight couple does), find a way to stay together.

    but, if maggie is willing to really dialogue with us around this issue, i can forgive her extrapolations. paul’s comments 5/10/06 in reference to her study are brilliant and i felt they covered all of the major issues.

    maggie – i am on this marriage equality thing like a dog with a bone and i’m not going to let up! i am on the smartmarriages listserv and have been feeling isolated and lonely for years that help for gay relationships is hardly, if ever, brought up during their annual conferences. in fact i combed thru this year’s program and i don’t see one gay/lesbian workshop.

    also – for those of you who don’t know – the federal gov’t is about to award grants in the millions to professionals who offer marriage education/enhancement, premarital counseling and low income counseling services to heterosexual couples, the result of president Bush’s National Save Marriage Project. i would imagine gay couples would not qualify to be served by any of these programs, despite gay folk paying for them with their taxes. this is so unfair and burns me up!

    i was interviewed by a local TV station (ABC affiliate WCJB in Gainesville, FL) 2 evenings ago while at an equality florida meeting in Ocala. i plan to focus my efforts on the issue of marriage equality. it also dovetails nicely with my work (coaching glbt and glbt-friendly singles and couples).

  18. posted by sammy on

    Many same-sex couples feel a desire to have society recognize their lifetime commitment to each other just as many opposite-sex couples do. Thats the simple fact, its a matter of time really where everyone will be treated equally in this harsh harsh world we call earth. Visit http://www.gaycenter.eu for more info and support.

  19. posted by Chairm on

    Society recognizes more than an adult commitment, sammy, when it elevates the unique social institution of marriage with a preferential status in policy and in law.

    What is the independant claim for elevation of the one-sex arrangement?

  20. posted by Nika on

    “Society recognizes more than an adult commitment … when it elevates the unique social institution of marriage with a preferential status in policy and in law.”

    And what exactly would that be?

Comments are closed.