Well, in terms of geographic distribution it might be reasonably good, but it’s clearly not remotely a good cross-section in terms of wealth per capita:
It’s numbers 11, 20, 21, 31, and 86 in the list in the middle column of that article. So countries which have reasonably well-off citizens tend to be more accepting of diversity in sexuality. This is true of various other ways in which you could measure such things. Look at which countries eliminated laws against homosexuality, which ones passed laws banning discrimination against homosexuals, which ones have homosexuals in major political offices, etc. Yeah, I realize South Africa is an outlier in this respect.
What we do see are slightly more marriages, which is good business for florists and cake-bakers.
In 1990, there were one or two civils servants who said they would not perform such a ceremony. That problem has disappeared. I guess if they still feel that way, they just ask to perform other ceremonies.
We also saw some high-profile gay male marriages. Our ex-mayor, for instance, is married to a celebrity gossip TV personality. That’s a lot of power in one union.
Before SSM was legal, there was about five years where a temporary form of it was instituted. Registered partnerships, they were called, and they were open to all couples. Now that full fledged SSM is legal, you’d think that the registered partnerships would go the way of the dodo. But they still exist, and about half of them are chosen by opposite sex couples. They feel it is less final and binding then marriage, somehow.
I have such an registered partnership with my husband. We also went to the notary and prenupped and willed everything down, so it’s binding as shit. My main reason for not gettign married was that I didn’t feel well at the time, and did not feel like celebrating big. If we did this small thing now, the paperwork would be in order and we could always still get married at a later time, if we felt like it. ( we haven’t )
Datais a little hard to come by, but it seems every nation you listed has seen an increase in the rate of out of wedlock children. That is what most of us anti-gay marriage people thought would happen and it seems we have been proved right.
Maybe I’m missing something, but how in the world does legalizing the ability for two same-sex people to marry somehow translate into more heterosexual people having out of wedlock children?
They seem like totally and utterly unrelated things.
Cool! I had not known that! That’s particularly good, because, when the U.S. finally dares to look into this, there will be an existing body of law that we can look at for guidance.
(Why make up something completely new when you can just copy another guy’s notes?)
Inasmuch as it seems like a really weird thing to ascribe to gay marriage, I’d like to see evidence you wrote that gay marriage would result in more children born out of wedlock.
And frankly, I can see no evidence at all of your claim being true. None. Children born out of wedlock are on the rise in Western countries that HAVEN’T had gay marriage for ten years, too. If gay marriage was the cause of this, that would not be the case.
)
