Evidence Of Gallagher\’s Beliefs
349 words.
By Thomas Krehbiel
You may recall that Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMAPP), previously told us that marriage in the United States was thriving (Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Marriage). Now she doesn’t sound so sure.
Recently on Crowhill: The link between “gay marriage” and demographic suicide, which references Europe’s Marriage Crisis, And Ours by… Maggie Gallagher.
In summary, the article claims (citing work by European demographer Ron Lesthaeghe and scholar Francesco Billari), or at least implies, that higher out-of-wedlock birth rates contribute to lower fertility rates and population decline. Also that legalizing same-sex marriage may further contribute to declining fertility rates. Gallagher’s warning is clear: Get married and don’t be gay or our society will die.
After reading the article, I’m left wondering why a culture’s survival depends on whether births occur in- or out-of-wedlock. Gallagher does not answer this question; she only indicates that fertility rates in Europe are declining while out-of-wedlock birth rates are increasing. I suppose she is inferring that a single mom is less likely to have the necessary 2.1* children than a wedded mom.
(* Statistically, 2.1 children are required from each woman to replenish the population.)
Further, Gallagher draws what seems like a pretty thin link between gay marriage and decreasing fertility: She points out that the same U.S. states that tend to favor legalizing same-sex marriage (ie. Blue States) also show signs of the so-called “Second Demographic Transition” (collapsing fertility rates). (I’m simplifying things for brevity… read the article if you want all the details.)
Thinness of evidence aside, here’s why I have trouble seeing why same-sex marriage would affect the population: Depending on who you listen to, anywhere from 1% to 10% of humans are homosexual. I’ll assume 5% for this discussion. Theoretically, those 5% won’t procreate, but that still leaves 95% of us to repopulate the species. That seems like plenty to handle keeping the population up.
All of which leads me to wonder if Ms. Galagher isn’t just scrounging for some pseudo-science to support IMAPP’s moral belief in “family values.”
Sorry, new comments are disabled on older posts. This helps reduce spam. Active commenting almost always occurs within a day or two of new posts.