Social Science Rears its Ugly Head
Maggie Gallagher does a redux of her (and Linda Waite's) argument in The Case for Marriage about the benefits of marriage here. Now, I will admit that I have not read her book, though I do not see how she can remove a VERY significant confound from these studies (many of which are self-reports) without doing explicit controlled experiments. This confound is the self-selection issue.

What came first the chicken or the egg? What I mean by this is that we do not know if it is responsible people who get married or married people become responsible. The big claims in her book, according to the book jacket, "Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially". But there is no way to tell if it is the same people who are the types to be happier, healthier, and better off financially that get married, or that marriage itself makes them that. Now, I am not arguing that marriage has no positive benefits. I believe that it does, particularly in many individual circumstances, but I also do not see that there is anything in marriage qua marriage that does this. If there was, Maggie would have to convince us to do some mental gymnastics to believe that two parents who are always fighting a la Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in War of the Roses are better off staying together and scarring the kids rather than getting a divorce.

Even so, I find it ironic that Maggie is such a staunch supporter of marriage, yet opposes same-sex marriage with such fervor. I would venture to guess that both are linked to her being a very pious Catholic rather than anything that she learned in her adventures in social science. There is nothing intrinsic in straight marriage that would make it wonderful to everyone involved, especially society, that is not there in gay marriage. Apparently, Jonathan Rauch has a new book out about the benefits of gay marriage. I would be interested to read it.

Origins of Political Institution of Marriage
This is a response to Eve Tushnet's very thoughtful post on the Marriage Debate Blog. Eve claims:

Marriage is a political (legal) issue, not solely a cultural issue, precisely because when a man and a woman have sex they often produce a child, and that child needs to be protected. The political structure of civil marriage arose around that fact and in response to that fact. Marriage is not a political issue because the state has a compelling interest in making sure that its citizens have fulfilling relationships, or feel that their romantic choices are honored--how is that the state's business? It's a political issue because of all the, you know, kids.

I believe this claim is highly dubious. It seems to me that marriage was a political institution because modern democracies evolved from theocratic regimes. Not strict theocracies, but at the very least, nations where the state was seen as an enforcer of much of The Church's rules (not just the RC Church, by the way). I think that this is a much more likely origin of the political institution of marriage.

The secular kids argument (as Eve presents it) seems implausible because, at least from what I know of early American colonial history, there were no secular procedures regarding adoption and nearly nothing governing child abuse. These are important insofar as their existence would point to a society that cared about kids, and hence would care about children enough to organize a political institution (ie: marriage) around them. The only institution during that period that I think justifies Eve's claim is inheritance. But even then, inheritance was essentially for male heirs only, also largely for religious reasons.

So, my argument, in case you couldn't work through the mish-mash here, is: 1) If political marriage is mainly about children then we ought expect to see other political institutions that reflected this, but we don't to any significant extent and 2) Those few political institutions that took kids into account were largely religious. This makes me think that religion and not protection of children were the impetus for making marriage an aspect of public policy.

Back In the Saddle Again
The blackout, lots of work, and drinking could only keep me from blogging for so long. Stay tuned while I blog up a storm.

"Even my failures make money and become classics a year after I make them."
Happy 104th Birthday to Alfred Hitchcock, the genius behind Virtigo, Rope and countless others.

My Argument with Lyndon LaRouche Supporters: A Transcript

Act One, Scene One
Scene: Union Square. Lots of people.
Lady: "Hi, would you like to read some literature about Mr. LaRouche?"
Me: "I've already read his stuff, but I'd like to talk to you about it."
Lady: "Ok."
Me: "Well, he's pretty much a socialist and wants a worker's paradise. This is somewhat of a problem for me since I'm a libertarian."
Lady: "Libertarians think that everything that is not a perfect libertarian state is a worker's paradise."
Me: "Umm... That's just not true. For example, I don't think that we live in a worker's paradise now."
Lady: "Well, Mr. LaRouche supports American capitalism as imagined by Jefferson and Madison. He's not a socialist."
Me: "Ok.... well, what's his stance on healthcare?"
Lady: "Mr. LaRouche does not like to give out sound-bite answers to Yes/No questions."
Me: "I didn't ask you a Yes/No question. I am giving you the opportunity to explain his seemingly nuanced position on healthcare."
Lady: "Well, healthcare won't matter anymore when we all die in a nuclear war."
Me: "Oh no! Why are we going to die in a nuclear war!?"
Lady: "Because Dick Cheney wants a nuclear war!"
Me: "How do you know that?"
Lady: "Well, he said he wanted one."
Me: "Ok, show me the exact statement where he said, 'I, Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, want a nuclear war.'"
Lady: "Well, he said that a first nuclear strike is a legitimate use of force."
Me: "Umm, that's totally different from saying that he wants nuclear war!"
Lady: (Pulls out picture of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld) "Well, what we really need is to impeach the neocons. Bush and Cheney are stupid and just listen to the neocons. If we got rid of them, everything would be fine."
Me: "You think Dick Cheney is stupid? Have you given him an IQ Test?"
Lady: "IQ Tests are invalid."
Me: "Are you a psychologist?"
Lady: "Well, I am sort of a psychologist."
Me: "Sort of? Like that guy on the street corner over there yelling that he is God. He is sort of God and you are sort of a psychologist."
Lady: "Well, I don't want to argue with you. I have Socratic dialogues not arguments."
Me: "A Socratic dialogue is an argument."
Lady: "Well, you are technically right. Ok, please go away."
Exeunt.

Act One, Scene Two
Scene: Half hour later in Union Square
Man: (shouting) "Sign our petition to impeach Dick Cheney! Impeach Dick Cheney!"
Me: "And what impeachable offense did Dick Cheney commit?"
Man: "Well, the whole yellow-cake uranium thing in Bush's State of the Union."
Me: "What yellow-cake uranium thing? I don't remember anything about yellow-cake uranium in his speech."
Man: "But come on! You know that that's what he was talking about!"
Me: "No we don't! There were several allegations of purchases of nuclear material from Africa by Iraq. Not just the Niger claim. Besides, the statement, either way, is technically true. Bush was simply quoting British intelligence. British intelligence still stands by their claims."
Man: "Yeah, but the claims are still unsubstantiated to this day. The CIA even said that that shouldn't have been in Bush's speech. And we know Cheney was the one who wanted it in despite CIA objections."
Me: "That makes it a lack of prudence not a lie. Imprudence is not a high crime or misdemeanor."
Man: "Why do you want to protect that warmongering bastard?"
Me: "Oh, so you don't really care about the process. You're just a communist and hate Dick Cheney. So, let's get to the substantive issues and have an argument about those rather than playing silly word games about impeachment."
Man: (sarcastic) "Yes sir, I'm a communist.... Please go away now."
Exeunt.