Gay marriage will cause 900,000 abortions

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The brief shows some major declines in states that recognized same-sex marriage. What they failed to do is to provide any meaningful comparison with the national rate - or whether changes in the national rate tracks with the abortion rate.  Communities with low marriage rates tend to have high abortion rates - but that is different from studying recent changes over time.

Having same-sex couples included in marriage is a major change, so it's not ridiculous to think it would have an impact on the rate of opposite-sex marriage, either positive or negative. People's interest in joining an institution will change based on the meaning and image of that institution that is communicated by society. And there's no reason to think that the change would happen within the span of a few years.  Most proponents of same sex marriage fundamentally misunderstand the perspective of the opposition and so leave their arguments largely unaddressed while going after strawmen - which is worrying to someone who supports gay marriage but doesn't always have a confident answer to these concerns. Jonathan Rauch has been an important exception in his ability to speak as a same-sex marriage proponent to a conservative perspective - and the data we have suggest he has been right about this: much greater of a threat to marriage than ssm is domestic partnerships / civil unions where these institutions have been extended to opposite sex couples.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The brief shows some major declines in states that recognized same-sex marriage. What they failed to do is to provide any meaningful comparison with the national rate - or whether changes in the national rate tracks with the abortion rate.  Communities with low marriage rates tend to have high abortion rates - but that is different from studying recent changes over time.

Having same-sex couples included in marriage is a major change, so it's not ridiculous to think it would have an impact on the rate of opposite-sex marriage, either positive or negative. People's interest in joining an institution will change based on the meaning and image of that institution that is communicated by society. And there's no reason to think that the change would happen within the span of a few years.  Most proponents of same sex marriage fundamentally misunderstand the perspective of the opposition and so leave their arguments largely unaddressed while going after strawmen - which is worrying to someone who supports gay marriage but doesn't always have a confident answer to these concerns. Jonathan Rauch has been an important exception in his ability to speak as a same-sex marriage proponent to a conservative perspective - and the data we have suggest he has been right about this: much greater of a threat to marriage than ssm is domestic partnerships / civil unions where these institutions have been extended to opposite sex couples.

Do you actually believe this is plausible?

Yes.  I think it would take a view of the human mind which is removed from its symbolic-cultural context and devoid of subconscious motivation to not be able to imagine that it would be.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

The question is:  will the meaning attached to this in the form of marriage itself continue to be gendered?  There are two courses that could be taken with the existence of same-sex marriage:  either 1) the cultural associations with marriage will be stripped of any gendered character in its language, social expectations, ritual and imagery, or 2) we will see the development of parallel genderings, parallel cultural forms that characterize same gender marriages on the one hand and opposite gender marriages on the other.  The first of these I would expect could be potentially detrimental to the institution of marriage because it will sap the institution of some of its symbolic influence.  The second on the other hand could strengthen and reinforce the institution by adding new perspectives to the marriage tradition's cultural heritage.   We can expect to see some combination of the two opposing trends, but how this will develop we don't yet know.   

Meanwhile, there is also a risk to marriage from the continued lack of same sex marriage within the present context. If the institution is seen as exclusive, this could enhance the perception in some parts of society that it is outdated, and so we could expect to see some increase in less formal, less stable arrangements in its place.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

The question is:  will the meaning attached to this in the form of marriage itself continue to be gendered?  There are two courses that could be taken with the existence of same-sex marriage:  either 1) the cultural associations with marriage will be stripped of any gendered character in its language, social expectations, ritual and imagery, or 2) we will see the development of parallel genderings, parallel cultural forms that characterize same gender marriages on the one hand and opposite gender marriages on the other.  The first of these I would expect could be potentially detrimental to the institution of marriage because it will sap the institution of some of its symbolic influence.  The second on the other hand could strengthen and reinforce the institution by adding new perspectives to the marriage tradition's cultural heritage.   We can expect to see some combination of the two opposing trends, but how this will develop we don't yet know.   

Meanwhile, there is also a risk to marriage from the continued lack of same sex marriage within the present context. If the institution is seen as exclusive, this could enhance the perception in some parts of society that it is outdated, and so we could expect to see some increase in less formal, less stable arrangements in its place.

One  can always theorize about what people will do,  but is it not fair to say that the burden of proof is on the side of those arguing against conferring a right on some group, and that burden must be met by adducing into evidence real and persuasive data? Isn't this burden particularly salient to meet when, as is the case with most of us here on this issue, that the theorized predicted behavior change seems far fetched? Is there any evidence at all that SSM where it has been legalized has actually caused a decline in the marriage rate?

The burden of proof depends on how fundamental the right claim is supposed to be. If marrying the partner of your choice is such a fundamental right that it requires a compelling interest to limit, then the burden of proof is on those who say that society has a compelling interest to limit it, so speculation is probably not enough. If the standard is rational basis instead, then speculation is enough because speculation is a form of rational evaluation.  There's no reason to insist that if there is an effect of a change in the definition of marriage it will be apparent in a matter of months and years rather than on the order a generational change, so at this point speculation is what we have to go on to consider its long-term effects.

In the words of the Talking Heads, you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. 

People don't get married because of their conception of the institution of marriage.  They get married because of their close, intimate, loving relationship with another person.  So, gender always matters, because a lesbian and a hetero man like ladies, and a gay man and a hetero lady like men.  Right?  And, people don't really take their social cues entirely from the law.  Honestly, I can't think of any situation where a straight person would choose not to get married because of same-sex marriage being legal. 

The Talking Heads said a great deal even if some found their lyrics obscure.

In some cultural contexts people get married when they have a close, intimate, loving relationship. In some contexts, they don't. In some contexts, people get married for other reasons - such as, for example, a girl is pregnant and so man up and do the right thing and be a father (this is an example of a gendered discourse). If it were completely based on the feelings in an individual relationship and the concept of marriage did not enter into it, we could not speak of the cultural qualities of marriage, but this is a thing that anthropologists and sociologists have been involved in since the beginnings of their disciplines.