A Conversation with the Authors
Q: Why is this book important for American audiences?
The 2000 Census reported almost 600,000 same-sex cohabiting couples in this country, and there are undoubtedly many more who did not report. One-third of the female couples and one-fifth of the male couples are raising children under the age of eighteen. A disproportionate percentage of these are working class couples struggling to provide for their families. Many of these couples would like to get married, and almost all of them would benefit from the rights and perhaps also duties the state provides for married couples.
But only Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut provide the same state support for lesbian and gay couples that they provide for married straight couples. A large majority of states have adopted laws or even constitutional amendments rejecting state marriage recognition for these couples. The President of the United States, the Majority Leaders of both the Senate and House, and some judicial intellectuals demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended to permanently deprive lesbian and gay couples of the possibility, not just the right, of state-sanctioned marriage.
Today's same-sex marriage debate is the great civil rights, or civil wrongs (depending on your perspective), debate of the new American Century. America is not at rest. Many well-meaning people favor same-sex marriage, and others oppose it. Our book is the first to examine the history of this debate in a comprehensive and fair way. And it is the first to examine the primary traditionalist argument, that same-sex marriage will destroy marriage and victimize children. Today, the only evidence American traditionalists have offered comes from Scandinavia. According to leading conservative intellectuals, senators, and activists, same-sex "marriage" has meant the "end of marriage" in Scandinavia - a result that would be replicated in the United States as well.
Q: How did the concept for this book arise?
Both of us became interested in the experience of other countries after Denmark adopted its registered partnership law in 1989. In the early 1990's, Darren wrote an honors thesis on domestic partnership benefits. At the time, few U.S. employers were offering same-sex partnership benefits. One of the main concerns for employers was the unknown effect that recognizing same-sex partnerships would have on their businesses. So Darren decided to follow up on his thesis research and look at the first countries in the world to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, to see what actually does happen when same-sex couples are allowed to marry. This led to his research in Scandinavia where, he discovered, many of the answers to this question are extremely important for other countries, such as the United States, that are currently debating same-sex marriage.
Between 1990 and 1995, Bill represented the first gay couple (Craig Dean and Pat Gill) to file a post-Denmark same-sex marriage lawsuit in the United States. The judge in the case asked for a special brief on the history of same-sex marriage, which Bill provided. Denmark's recognition of same-sex "marriages" demonstrated that the idea was not a contradiction in terms. This research was the basis for Bill's argument, in The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), that many societies throughout human history have recognized and supported same-sex relationships. With Rob Wintemute of King's College, London, Bill filed an amicus brief presenting updated comparative law materials (again, with an emphasis on Scandinavia) in the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case.
Q: What exactly are the main "take-aways" from this book?
The main takeaway is: not only does same-sex marriage not harm the institution of marriage, but it actually benefits the institution. The argument now made against state recognition of same-sex marriages is that it would undermine the institution of marriage. This defense-of-marriage argument has expanded to include its obvious corollary: Just look at Scandinavia. After those countries allowed homosexuals to "marry," the institution withered and children are now being raised by single or unmarried parents. This argument has been made by such prominent intellectuals as former Judge Robert Bork and political leaders ranging from Senate Majority Leader William Frist and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Our book demonstrates that these claims are incorrect. In Scandinavia, same-sex partnerships (or marriages) have allowed thousands of couples and their children to formalize and deepen their relationships - at no cost to the institution of marriage. More Danes are getting married now than in 1989, the divorce rate has fallen, and fewer children are born outside of marriage (after a soaring non-marital birth rate from 1970 to 1989). Gay marriage keeps relationships stronger, strengthens families, protects children, promotes tolerance, and can even lead to benefits on a national scale.
Q: If the book is about "gay marriage", why do you use "registered partnership" as the example?
Our reasons are largely practical. By adopting its registered partnership law in 1989, Denmark became the first country to extend the rights and duties of marriage to same-sex couples. (Norway followed in 1993, and Sweden in 1995.) As we saw in Scandinavia, by extending all of the legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples but calling it something else, much of the criticism of same-sex marriage became immediately muted and made it possible to pass this law. We now have sixteen years of data and experience with registered partnerships - a much longer period than we have for Dutch same-sex marriages (recognized in 2001).
Moreover, for both legal and cultural reasons, registered partnerships are generally equated with marriages in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian registered partnership laws simply state that everywhere in the country's laws where you see the word "marriage", it shall also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and everywhere where you see the word "spouse" shall also be construed to mean "registered partner". So basically the entire body of marriage law was transferred onto same-sex couples with a different name.
Not surprisingly, most Scandinavians who are registered as partners consider themselves "married", as we discovered from our interviews with a wide variety of registered couples. We also conducted a poll of 812 Danes, almost 80 percent of whom opined that registered partnership was "about the same thing" as marriage. Scandinavians, both gay and straight, generally don't draw a distinction between registered partnership and marriage. Thus for the purposes of this research, we consider these countries as having "gay marriage", although the legal term is "registered partnership".
Q: What is the future of gay marriage in these countries and the United States?
More than a decade of experience with registered partnerships has made Nordic cultures more comfortable with the idea of lesbians and gay men getting married. Now that they've had it in the form of registered partnerships for a decade or more, and they've seen that no harm has come as a result, they are starting to make plans to transition the name from "registered partnership" to "marriage". Sweden and Norway are likely to do this in the next couple of years, and probably Denmark as well.
A lesson for American gay activists is this: by taking 97 percent or so of the benefits of marriage now, the remaining 3 percent will come in the near future. Moreover, an all-or-nothing approach - marriage or nothing - may not be the best strategy for lesbian and gay rights. When large segments of a community are deeply upset by introducing lesbians and gay men into a sacred institution, incrementalism is not only a better strategy for gay people, but also a better approach for the community as a whole. So why not take most of the benefits now, and the remaining few benefits after gay and lesbian legal unions have become a non-issue?
Vermont and Connecticut civil unions are a good example of this. By giving a little compromise now (i.e., on the name of "marriage"), gays and lesbians in those states have been able to get all of the rights and benefits of the state marriage laws. And Connecticut became the first state where this happened without the courts getting involved! This is a very important lesson, as most state courts, and certainly the U.S. Supreme Court, are highly unlikely to recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage anytime soon.
With that in mind, gay activists seeking same-sex marriage in many states will be best off following the Connecticut example - to make small compromises, work with the state legislature, take almost all of the benefits of marriage now, and save the "fight" for the last 3 or 4 percent of benefits that take you all the way to same-sex marriage, including the name.
Q: What is the future of marriage and family law in these countries and the United States?
The long-term trend in all these countries has been strongly away from "traditional marriage." The main reason for the decline of traditional marriage has been soaring divorce rates, supported by no-fault divorce regimes demanded by heterosexuals. Another feature of marriage's decline has been social toleration of and state support for non-marriage alternatives, primarily cohabitation. Again, states lend some support to cohabitation, because straight couples demand it - but the result is that fewer couples get married today than fifty years ago. Increasing numbers of children are born outside of marriage.
Interestingly, all of these features of marriage's decline - soaring divorce rates, declining marriage rates, and exponential increases in children born out of wedlock - reversed themselves in Denmark after its Parliament recognized registered partnerships. Hostile to same-sex marriage, the United States continues to see marriage erode. Rather than discouraging divorce or encouraging two-parent families with tangible support initiatives, many traditionalists spend their valuable time and resources attacking committed lesbian and gay couples and marginalizing the children they are devoted to rearing.
Whether they recognize gay marriages or not, western societies are heading toward a menu approach to state recognition of adult relationships. Marriage will be one option, competing with other legal forms that might include domestic partnership, cohabitation, reciprocal beneficiaries (cohabitation with a lot more benefits), and perhaps (we hope) even covenant marriage (an effort to recreate "traditional" marriage-for-life). Straight family values advocates should be working with lesbian and gay traditionalists, such as ourselves, to make old-fashioned marriage more attractive for young couples who are going to have more choices than their parents had.
Q: How did the two of you work together in creating this book?
Each of us brought valuable information and insights into creating this book. Darren spent two years in Scandinavia on a Fulbright Fellowship researching same-sex marriage there and, in addition to archival research, interviewed dozens of married couples, as well as politicians, activists, sociologists, conservatives, and others. He has written a number of articles and lectured at several major universities in regards to the Scandinavian experience with same-sex marriage. His insight from this research provides a basis for our understanding of how same-sex marriage has worked in practice, and for our conclusions.
Bill is one of America's foremost experts on the subject of same-sex marriage in the United States, as well as on gay and lesbian legal issues generally. He has written two books on the subject, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996) and Equality Practice (2002). He has been central to the same-sex marriage debate since 1990, defending marriage against critics on both the Left and the Right. Bill has seen the debate evolve, away from openly moralistic arguments (homosexuality and gay marriage are unnatural) and toward social policy arguments like defense of marriage. In the national debate on same-sex marriage at Philadelphia's Constitution Center in 2004, Bill jousted with Judge Robert (the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment) and Representative Robert Barr (the sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act) over the defense-of-marriage argument and its new Scandinavian twist.
The 2000 Census reported almost 600,000 same-sex cohabiting couples in this country, and there are undoubtedly many more who did not report. One-third of the female couples and one-fifth of the male couples are raising children under the age of eighteen. A disproportionate percentage of these are working class couples struggling to provide for their families. Many of these couples would like to get married, and almost all of them would benefit from the rights and perhaps also duties the state provides for married couples.
But only Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut provide the same state support for lesbian and gay couples that they provide for married straight couples. A large majority of states have adopted laws or even constitutional amendments rejecting state marriage recognition for these couples. The President of the United States, the Majority Leaders of both the Senate and House, and some judicial intellectuals demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended to permanently deprive lesbian and gay couples of the possibility, not just the right, of state-sanctioned marriage.
Today's same-sex marriage debate is the great civil rights, or civil wrongs (depending on your perspective), debate of the new American Century. America is not at rest. Many well-meaning people favor same-sex marriage, and others oppose it. Our book is the first to examine the history of this debate in a comprehensive and fair way. And it is the first to examine the primary traditionalist argument, that same-sex marriage will destroy marriage and victimize children. Today, the only evidence American traditionalists have offered comes from Scandinavia. According to leading conservative intellectuals, senators, and activists, same-sex "marriage" has meant the "end of marriage" in Scandinavia - a result that would be replicated in the United States as well.
Q: How did the concept for this book arise?
Both of us became interested in the experience of other countries after Denmark adopted its registered partnership law in 1989. In the early 1990's, Darren wrote an honors thesis on domestic partnership benefits. At the time, few U.S. employers were offering same-sex partnership benefits. One of the main concerns for employers was the unknown effect that recognizing same-sex partnerships would have on their businesses. So Darren decided to follow up on his thesis research and look at the first countries in the world to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, to see what actually does happen when same-sex couples are allowed to marry. This led to his research in Scandinavia where, he discovered, many of the answers to this question are extremely important for other countries, such as the United States, that are currently debating same-sex marriage.
Between 1990 and 1995, Bill represented the first gay couple (Craig Dean and Pat Gill) to file a post-Denmark same-sex marriage lawsuit in the United States. The judge in the case asked for a special brief on the history of same-sex marriage, which Bill provided. Denmark's recognition of same-sex "marriages" demonstrated that the idea was not a contradiction in terms. This research was the basis for Bill's argument, in The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), that many societies throughout human history have recognized and supported same-sex relationships. With Rob Wintemute of King's College, London, Bill filed an amicus brief presenting updated comparative law materials (again, with an emphasis on Scandinavia) in the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case.
Q: What exactly are the main "take-aways" from this book?
The main takeaway is: not only does same-sex marriage not harm the institution of marriage, but it actually benefits the institution. The argument now made against state recognition of same-sex marriages is that it would undermine the institution of marriage. This defense-of-marriage argument has expanded to include its obvious corollary: Just look at Scandinavia. After those countries allowed homosexuals to "marry," the institution withered and children are now being raised by single or unmarried parents. This argument has been made by such prominent intellectuals as former Judge Robert Bork and political leaders ranging from Senate Majority Leader William Frist and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Our book demonstrates that these claims are incorrect. In Scandinavia, same-sex partnerships (or marriages) have allowed thousands of couples and their children to formalize and deepen their relationships - at no cost to the institution of marriage. More Danes are getting married now than in 1989, the divorce rate has fallen, and fewer children are born outside of marriage (after a soaring non-marital birth rate from 1970 to 1989). Gay marriage keeps relationships stronger, strengthens families, protects children, promotes tolerance, and can even lead to benefits on a national scale.
Q: If the book is about "gay marriage", why do you use "registered partnership" as the example?
Our reasons are largely practical. By adopting its registered partnership law in 1989, Denmark became the first country to extend the rights and duties of marriage to same-sex couples. (Norway followed in 1993, and Sweden in 1995.) As we saw in Scandinavia, by extending all of the legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples but calling it something else, much of the criticism of same-sex marriage became immediately muted and made it possible to pass this law. We now have sixteen years of data and experience with registered partnerships - a much longer period than we have for Dutch same-sex marriages (recognized in 2001).
Moreover, for both legal and cultural reasons, registered partnerships are generally equated with marriages in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian registered partnership laws simply state that everywhere in the country's laws where you see the word "marriage", it shall also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and everywhere where you see the word "spouse" shall also be construed to mean "registered partner". So basically the entire body of marriage law was transferred onto same-sex couples with a different name.
Not surprisingly, most Scandinavians who are registered as partners consider themselves "married", as we discovered from our interviews with a wide variety of registered couples. We also conducted a poll of 812 Danes, almost 80 percent of whom opined that registered partnership was "about the same thing" as marriage. Scandinavians, both gay and straight, generally don't draw a distinction between registered partnership and marriage. Thus for the purposes of this research, we consider these countries as having "gay marriage", although the legal term is "registered partnership".
Q: What is the future of gay marriage in these countries and the United States?
More than a decade of experience with registered partnerships has made Nordic cultures more comfortable with the idea of lesbians and gay men getting married. Now that they've had it in the form of registered partnerships for a decade or more, and they've seen that no harm has come as a result, they are starting to make plans to transition the name from "registered partnership" to "marriage". Sweden and Norway are likely to do this in the next couple of years, and probably Denmark as well.
A lesson for American gay activists is this: by taking 97 percent or so of the benefits of marriage now, the remaining 3 percent will come in the near future. Moreover, an all-or-nothing approach - marriage or nothing - may not be the best strategy for lesbian and gay rights. When large segments of a community are deeply upset by introducing lesbians and gay men into a sacred institution, incrementalism is not only a better strategy for gay people, but also a better approach for the community as a whole. So why not take most of the benefits now, and the remaining few benefits after gay and lesbian legal unions have become a non-issue?
Vermont and Connecticut civil unions are a good example of this. By giving a little compromise now (i.e., on the name of "marriage"), gays and lesbians in those states have been able to get all of the rights and benefits of the state marriage laws. And Connecticut became the first state where this happened without the courts getting involved! This is a very important lesson, as most state courts, and certainly the U.S. Supreme Court, are highly unlikely to recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage anytime soon.
With that in mind, gay activists seeking same-sex marriage in many states will be best off following the Connecticut example - to make small compromises, work with the state legislature, take almost all of the benefits of marriage now, and save the "fight" for the last 3 or 4 percent of benefits that take you all the way to same-sex marriage, including the name.
Q: What is the future of marriage and family law in these countries and the United States?
The long-term trend in all these countries has been strongly away from "traditional marriage." The main reason for the decline of traditional marriage has been soaring divorce rates, supported by no-fault divorce regimes demanded by heterosexuals. Another feature of marriage's decline has been social toleration of and state support for non-marriage alternatives, primarily cohabitation. Again, states lend some support to cohabitation, because straight couples demand it - but the result is that fewer couples get married today than fifty years ago. Increasing numbers of children are born outside of marriage.
Interestingly, all of these features of marriage's decline - soaring divorce rates, declining marriage rates, and exponential increases in children born out of wedlock - reversed themselves in Denmark after its Parliament recognized registered partnerships. Hostile to same-sex marriage, the United States continues to see marriage erode. Rather than discouraging divorce or encouraging two-parent families with tangible support initiatives, many traditionalists spend their valuable time and resources attacking committed lesbian and gay couples and marginalizing the children they are devoted to rearing.
Whether they recognize gay marriages or not, western societies are heading toward a menu approach to state recognition of adult relationships. Marriage will be one option, competing with other legal forms that might include domestic partnership, cohabitation, reciprocal beneficiaries (cohabitation with a lot more benefits), and perhaps (we hope) even covenant marriage (an effort to recreate "traditional" marriage-for-life). Straight family values advocates should be working with lesbian and gay traditionalists, such as ourselves, to make old-fashioned marriage more attractive for young couples who are going to have more choices than their parents had.
Q: How did the two of you work together in creating this book?
Each of us brought valuable information and insights into creating this book. Darren spent two years in Scandinavia on a Fulbright Fellowship researching same-sex marriage there and, in addition to archival research, interviewed dozens of married couples, as well as politicians, activists, sociologists, conservatives, and others. He has written a number of articles and lectured at several major universities in regards to the Scandinavian experience with same-sex marriage. His insight from this research provides a basis for our understanding of how same-sex marriage has worked in practice, and for our conclusions.
Bill is one of America's foremost experts on the subject of same-sex marriage in the United States, as well as on gay and lesbian legal issues generally. He has written two books on the subject, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996) and Equality Practice (2002). He has been central to the same-sex marriage debate since 1990, defending marriage against critics on both the Left and the Right. Bill has seen the debate evolve, away from openly moralistic arguments (homosexuality and gay marriage are unnatural) and toward social policy arguments like defense of marriage. In the national debate on same-sex marriage at Philadelphia's Constitution Center in 2004, Bill jousted with Judge Robert (the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment) and Representative Robert Barr (the sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act) over the defense-of-marriage argument and its new Scandinavian twist.