Justin Katz of Dust in the Light. has responded to my post describing the deceleration in the rate of change in the US non-marital birth ratio and its relationship to the campaign for same sex marriage. My argument is analogous to that of Dr. Stanley Kurtz. Just as Dr. Kurtz argues that the acceleration in the rate-of-change in the Dutch non-marital birth ratio is caused by the Dutch campaign for same sex marriage, I argued the deceleration in the rate-of-change in the American non-marital birth ratio is caused by the American campaign for same sex marriage.
In my June 8 article, I listed the categories of flaws Mr. Katz identified. I also addressed one category of flaws.[1] Today, I will address this second category of flaws:
I will consider three theories Mr. Katz suggested might explain the data. These are:
- The beneficial effects of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which might lower the non-marital birth ratio.
- The “boost” phenomena which might lower the non-marital birth ratio.
- The tendency of campaigns for same sex marriage to raise the non-marital birth ratio, as Dr. Kurtz has speculated.
The Welfare Reform Act of 1996
Mr. Katz suggested The Welfare Reform Act might explain the American Data:
Justin Katz is correct; I did not consider that the 1995 deceleration might have resulted from The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed into law in late August. Women who became pregnant the day the bill was signed would give birth in May 1997, contributing to the 1997 birth statistics. In any case, one might expect a somewhat longer time lag. After all, it is possible that co-habiting couples might spend a few months deciding to marry and then a few more planning their wedding.
Consequently, the first full year when one would expect to note any effect of The Welfare Reform Act of on the birth statistics would be 1998. Any attempt to assess the impact of the legislation at an earlier date would be premature. In 1998, the non-marital birth ratio rose to 32. 8% after remaining at 32.4% for two years running.
To address my omission, I added passage of The Welfare Reform Act to my graph. The line between 1996 and 1997 denotes passage; the later line shows when women who became pregnant the day before the act was signed would have given birth.
Examining the graph, it appears unlikely The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 caused the decline in birth rates in 1995.
The boost effect
Mr. Katz suggests I overlooked the theory that discussions of SSM might cause people to better value marriage. He refers to this as the “boost” phenomenon. I thought that general theory was precisely the one I suggested!
As I see it, when gay rights advocates demand the right to marry, the demand itself suggests marriage is a valuable. When advocates explain why couples wish to marry, describe the numerous advantages of marriage, and how marriage benefits children, other people may listen. If listeners are swayed by these explanations, they may decide to marry rather than to co-habit. Collectively, their decisions could lead to a reduction in the non-marital birth ratio.
The campaign may have another positive effect. In his articles, Dr. Kurtz has suggested that cohabitation may be contagious. When some couples cohabit, others imitate them. One might speculate that marriage can also be contagious. The pure joy of watching happy people marry often causes people to value marriage. We see this effect described in blogs like this one posted at Notes From the Tundra!, in which a woman describes how watching a same sex wedding in Oregon caused her to better value her own heterosexual marriage.
Witnessing this joy, might it not be possible that a co-habiting heterosexual couple would decide to marry? Might not a young black teenager insist on marriage before pregnancy? Would this contagion tend to explain not only the overall deceleration in out-of-wedlock births I illustrated in my graph, but also the deceleration in out-of-wedlock birth among black teens that Mr. Katz noted?
However, I suspect, neither of these mechanisms are the one Mr. Katz believes I overlooked. Possibly he refers to positive influence that might occur if opponents of same sex marriage were to modify their message as advised by Dr. Gabriel Rosenberg:
This boost theory seems plausible. If a group describes how marriage helps children, some people might believe them. They might choose to marry rather than cohabit.
However, to believe opponents of SSM actually contributed the effect we saw during the 90’s, their message would have had to focus on promoting marriage. Some probably did. To evaluate how many, I reviewed a variety of articles and web pages that appear right now. It seems to me that, at least currently, pro-marriage voices are drowned out by those shouting the five phantom menaces: bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy and male philandering caused by polygamy which is caused by SSM. There is also plenty of evidence that the opponents, like those at United Families, also go to significant length to communicate the idea that marriage is not a right and possibly not really about love and commitment.
Moreover, the underlying message of opposition to same sex marriage is this:
If that message doesn’t unlink marriage and parenthood, I don’t know what does!
If the eight messages I found were the dominant themes of opposition to SSM during in the nineties, as they currently seem to be, it is unlikely opponents’ arguments contributed to the deceleration in the non-marital birth ratio. More likely, it would lead to an acceleration. So, I find idea that the deceleration in the non-marital birth rate was due to the themes promoted by the opponents of same sex marriage highly unlikely. It seems fortunate to me that people listened to the advice of advocates of SSM who said marriage is valuable, and all parents should be married.
Kurtz Theory
Mr. Katz also suggests I should consider Dr. Kurtz speculations that discussions of same sex marriage will cause people to devalue marriage. The essence of his argument is:
Readers will note that by removing the word “not” and changing “won’t” to “will”, Dr. Kurtz’s suggested cause and effect mechanism becomes mine. As logical arguments both say: If people say something, others may believe them. Then others may act on that belief. So, since our logic is identical, anyone who finds Dr. Kurtz’s mechanism plausible must find mine so, and vice versa.[1]
Katz provides lengthy direct quotes wherein Dr. Kurtz speculates as to the various stages involved in destroying matrimony as an institution. Dr. Kurtz finally concludes “this will result in a rapid increase of out-of-wedlock births as a result of loosening sexual and marital mores and laws”.
Suffice it to say that Dr. Kurtz’s theory which predicts a rapid increase is not supported by the US data which shows a factor of four deceleration in the rate-of- change in out-of-wedlock births during the American campaign for sex marriage.
Conclusion
I believe I have addressed the three possible explanations suggested by Mr. Katz.
- It is highly unlikely that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 caused the changes observed in 1995.
- The arguments by opponents of same sex marriage probably did not lead to the deceleration in the non-marital birth ratio.
- Dr. Kurtz’s theory that the campaign same sex marriage will lead to a rapid increase in non-marital births is not supported by the American Data.
Having evaluated these possible theories, I find that the theory advocacy of same sex marriage, accompanied by the message that parents should be married, must have caused the deceleration in the non-marital birth ratio,
===============End Notes
[1] Dr. Kurtz discussed other factors that might explain the data he published in May, in his June article. He discussed his theory about the decay of marriage in Scandinavia in Feb. and told the American people and Congress his theories were supported by the Dutch data in April, (pdf).
[2] Julian, a poster at Alas a Blog, believes the idea that discussion of SSM, or even legalization of SSM could in affect the nonmarital birth rate in any way at all is entirely implausible. As both my theory and that of Dr. Kurtz rely on this assumption that the discussions could affect the non-marital birth rate, Julian rejects both. I believe he, and others who share his view about this causal mechanism, would not be convinced unless either Dr. Kurtz or I provided evidence showing a the relationship between legalized SSM on the change in the non-marital birth ratio was statistically significant. Such a study would require legalization in numerous countries..
Well,
I agree with Julian that the legalization of ssm and decrease in non-marital birth rate (and abortion rate also, if I’m remembering correctly) are related.
USA has become more and more conservative overall, a natural trend, which will eventually, most likely reverse itself. Better and more easily available birth control might also contribute.
Although, is it possible that the idea that this law would go into effect could affect the decisions on the couple to use or be more responsible in using, birth control? Just a thought.
The intersting this chart and your suppositions, I will say that much.
First, Do you mean you agree with Julian that they are not related?
Although, is it possible that the idea that this law would go into effect could affect the decisions on the couple to use or be more responsible in using, birth control? Just a thought.
I thought of the possibility that women might be influenced by Congressional discussions of the Bill. The only problem is that, to affect the birth ratio in 1995, when it happened, women would need to use better birth control (or get married or decide to not move in with their boyfriends etc.) during 1994 two years before the bill was signed. That means that the women, they need to react to the provisions of the Bill before they even know the outcome of the 1994 congressional elections.
Political pundit who are paid to predict the future can rarely predict which bills will be passed two years in the future. They can rarely even predict which party is going to gain seats in Congress.
I am keeping track of suggested reasons, and I may come back to them. ;-)
You really need to find better ways to spend your time. Like Katz, you seem to have unlimited amounts of it to devote to the construction of meaningless graphs and tables.
Look, there are numerous social and economic forces that affect birth rates, marriage rates, abortion rates, and so on. Criminal laws. Tax laws. Family laws. Employment laws. Health care policy. Private sector policies. Movies and television. Technological advances. Random events. No one really knows how these things are related in any clear way. Much of the short-term change is likely to be just random fluctuation. With a little research, I could probably come up with 20 or 30 social, legal, cultural, economic, or technological changes that correlate reasonably well with the out-of-wedlock birth rate pattern you show above, and for which I could construct a “plausible” argument for a causal link. But it would all be just so much bullshit. Professional social scientists may spend years trying to build a case for such a relationship, trying to amass sufficient data and control for confounding factors, and even then their findings would likely be highly controversial. That’s why these debates are so worthless. Maybe gay marriage will cause out-of-wedlock births to increase. Maybe it won’t. Maybe it will cause marriage rates to decrease. Maybe it will cause them to increase. Maybe it will cause more abortion. Maybe it will cause less. Maybe it will have no effect at all. The point is: No one knows the answers to these questions with any confidence, and no one has any basis for making confident predictions on the matter, either. The issue is simply too complex and intractable to resolve either way using these silly correlations.
The real problem with Kurtz and Katz’s arguments isn’t that the causal relationship they claim to exist is spurious. The real problem is the idea that it’s possible to confidently establish any such causal link at all from the kind of limited information and superficial analysis they (and you also, here) are engaging in.
I think this is the point Andrew Sullivan was making is his recent ridiculing of Kurtz’s arguments.
Don’t you love it when people take something too seriously to notice satire? I know that I do.
Don P.
You will be interested to know that since my firts article appeared that some opponents of SSM have begun to take your point of view that the factors are “complex” and the time line for social change may be long. Possibly, some are observing, Dr. Kurtz data may not tell us what he thinks they tell us.
However. I believe I must plow on and address Mr. Katz full criticism. There are still two points: The 1995 birth ratio and the implied accusation that I have not expended as much ink as Dr. Kurtz.
If you like, in future footnotes, I can add your name to Julian’s as one who thinks the entire idea that campaign for SSM could affect the rate of change in the non-marital birthratio? (I’ll add Rachel Anns’ too, if she likes. I may even run a survey to let people vote on this!)
There are a lot of factors that have led to the decrease in birth rates, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that welfare reform is one of them. The good economy in the ’90s led to better living conditions, lower unemployment rates, etc. Rachel Ann mentioned birth control. There are more types available now and there is better access to it. The overall birth rate has actually increased slightly between 1995 and 2001. Interestingly, the white unwed pregnancy rates have increased but black unwed pregnancy rates have dropped. You can really see the differences in rise and fall of various unwed birth rates in the age ranges.
The information I just posted is available here:
Trends in the Wellbeing of American Children and Youth (2002). Section 1: Population, Family, & Neighborhood.
Keep in mind that the “skyrocketing” unmarried birth rate between the 1960s and 2001 is primarily due to women marrying much later now than they did then. There are more young unmarried women than there were 40 years ago. Marriage rates in recent years continue to fall (and the age of first marriage continues to rise), which also contributes to the unmarried pregnancy rate. There were more teen pregnancies in the 1950s because women in their late teens were more likely then to be married than they are now. Families today are also moving towards having fewer children than families in the past.
Keep in mind the the Trends In Well-Being report found what most researchers already know, that “the great majority of children brought up in single-parent families do well. In particular, differences in well-being between children from divorced and those from intact families tend, on average, to be moderate to small.” So much about welfare reform blames single mother homes for social pathology. Single-mother homes are at risk for problems, but this report shows that most of these families do well.
Jake Squid:
You can’t be serious. Sullivan’s piece is satire. Lucia seems so determined to beat Kurtz and Katz at their own game that she hasn’t realized its meaninglessness.
If you like, in future footnotes, I can add your name to Julian’s as one who thinks the entire idea that campaign for SSM could affect the rate of change in the non-marital birthratio?
I don’t understand the above question. Or is it supposed to be a statement? Did you forget to add the words “is false,” or somesuch, to the end? It’s hard to decipher.
In any case, although I thought my point was crystal clear, you seem to have misunderstood it. I’m not saying that the campaign for SSM, or SSM itself, could not or does not affect non-marital birth rates. It’s certainly possible that such an effect exists. I’m saying that there are so many factors that are likely to influence non-marital birth rates, and so many factors that are likely to influence non-marital birthrates to a much greater degree than SSM (assuming SSM has any influence at all), that simply pointing to a correlation between SSM and non-marital birthrates and inferring a causal relationship, or even that such a relationship is merely “plausible,” from that correlation is ludicrous. When you’ve invested a few hundred more hours in your silly exercise to control for all these other factors, get back to us.
You may not think that it is GOOD satire, but there is no question about it BEING satire. Read other stuff that Lucia has written and you will see that she is a proponent of the “correlation does not equal causation” argument with which you agree. If we follow the path down which she is leading us we will eventually get the graph showing that the reduction in the rate of increase of out-of-wedlock births was actually caused by my decision to move west. Or perhaps caused by the litter of labrador retrievers for Guiding Eyes for the Blind that was delivered in my bedroom. Whatever.
Right. She’s just joking. That must be why she’s devoting hundreds of words to rebutting Katz’s alternative explanations for the correlation she identifies…
Jake and Don P.
Not that I would wish to take sides in this debate, however, I think you both might be interested in this. Prizes are available: ignoble prizes. Evidently, one can win a frying pan shaped medal.
If anyone thinks I deserve a nomination, please identify the nominating committe and forward my stuff!
Oh I love the JIR. I haven’t looked at anything of theirs in a decade. I had no idea about the medal. What hooks me is not the shape but the fact that it screams when shaken. The parking permit is pretty good too. Thanks for reminding me of its existence.
Yeah, I really love the following piece of “satire.” Obviously, no one would mistake it for earnest argumentation.
Conclusion
– I believe I have addressed the three possible explanations suggested by Mr. Katz.
– It is highly unlikely that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 caused the changes observed in 1995.
– The arguments by opponents of same sex marriage probably did not lead to the deceleration in the non-marital birth ratio.
Dr. Kurtz’s theory that the campaign same sex marriage will lead to a rapid increase in non-marital births is not supported by the American Data.
Pingback: Dust in the Light