Andrew Hagen

Stanley Milgram was a famous psychologist who originated the idea of “six degrees of separation.” (*) He also performed the famous experiments “gone wrong” in which people obeyed orders to deliver electrical shocks to innocent others in another room.

Now, according to the BBC, Judith Kleinfeld, a professor of psychology at Alaska Fairbanks University, has delved deeper into the six degrees of separation theory and the evidence of it that Milgram had. (†) Kleinfeld demonstrates that more than 95% of letters sent to random addresses are not returned in study after study. Consequently, the true “degrees of separation” in society must average higher than six, and much greater average separation should be expected. Thanks to Judith Kleinfeld’s diligence, we now know that Milgram’s “six degrees of separation” theory is a hoax. It has been popularized, and will now unfortunately live on as a superstition or “urban myth” as we modern sophisticates like to refer to our knowingly false beliefs.

As for Milgram’s obedience experiments, they have been controversial after they were shut down over ethical concerns. Milgram’s experiments have been cited again and again in the academic and popular literature on how easy it is to turn human beings into agents of torture and repression.

Nevertheless, I believe deep skepticism is warranted on Milgram’s obedience experiments as well. The “torture victim” in the experiments never felt any actual pain. Furthermore, the actor or actors who played the torture victim apparently had their voice transmitted live into the room where the experimental subjects were. It is difficult to convincingly act out or portray physical pain when one does not have such. Additionally, the portrayal of physical pain is more difficult if one has use only of audio and not any opportunity to portray the pain in a visual pantomime of a body affected by pain for the audience.

There is much reason to suspect that Milgram’s actors were not especially convincing in portraying physical pain. The experimental subjects would in real life situations have had better clues, even if those clues would be processed unconsciously only, than had the subjects in Milgram’s experiment. Consequently, conclusions drawn from Milgram’s obedience experiments must be considered to have no validity.

Of course, someone has probably pointed out this problem with the obedience experiments before, but I do not have a citation or reference at hand. If someone would post one, you would have my thanks.

Urban myths can be entertaining, but they can also form a phony foundation on which society may base its decisions, and therefore it may be useful to combat modern superstitions, also known as “urban myths.”

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean claimed on Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that the 2004 Democratic Party platform states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not state that at all. Dean’s lie resulted in a gay rights group demanding its money back from the Democratic Party, even after the false nature of the statement was made known. (*) (†)

Maureen Dowd has a provocative excerpt in the NYT Magazine today from her new book, effectively mourning the death of feminism. (*) The post-Baby Boomer generations of women have not been true to the ideals of 1969, she says, and now the return of the Stepford Wife is upon us. Men are attracted to maids and not their female peers. Successful white collar career women can’t find husbands. A man wants a soft, nice girl, not an intelligent, critical woman. With all the success of women in the workplace, what has really been achieved?

Dowd is not the first to make her basic point. It is a time of retrenchment if not retreat for feminism. Now is an appropriate time for feminists to engage in reevaluation and self-critical inquiry.

Dowd’s essay presumes that thanks to feminism, women “get to” have their own careers, and “enjoy” all of the things that men get to “enjoy” in their working lives. Work can be fun. A career can be fulfilling. If you choose it carefully and work hard at it, it can all be terribly worthwhile.

That said, no one wants to spend most of their life slaving away at a disliked job. Even in a career you love, you will have to spend time doing spade work and generally grinding out work you do not enjoy. So why do people go to work? They sacrifice their time largely because they are trying to help their family. They are trying to live in a nice place or save up enough to send their kids to school. They want to put food on the table and enjoy the quality of life they desire. While a carefully-chosen job can fulfill your desire to do good, and even be a lot of fun, the main reason you work is not because of the work, but because of the end result.

For most of the massive influx of women entering the US labor force since the early 1970s, the driving force wasn’t to seek power, privilege, or a good time in a career. The desire was to maintain or improve the quality of life for their families. Since that time economic pressure on families has been intense. Only recently since then has personal average income risen in real terms. To pay the mortgage or maintain what they already had, many families needed the wife and mother to get a job. It wasn’t really a question of seeking status or feminine liberation for them. They needed to become dual income families.

Career-oriented women are not really at an unfair disadvantage in the marriage market. Undeniably, however, men and women in America today have become distanced and even estranged from one another. There is no single cause of this alienation. My own feeling is that both men and women have too often forgotten that marriage and love involve deep sacrifice and compromise to be paid willingly. You can view it as a game, and play it ruthlessly. The ones who do, though, suffer mercilessly. A career is not something that you ideally “get.” It is something that you give. The same is true of a healthy relationship.

Feminism encouraged women to envy men. One of the key problems with modern feminism is that it has treated people as objects in that it urged women to “get” their own career, power, privilege, perks, and money. If you really want those things more than anything else, you don’t want a career. You should become a criminal, such as a mobster or a crime lord. You embark on a career because you want to make money in a good and decent way. If you really want a healthy intimate relationship, you must be prepared to give much and get little. Careers, like relationships, involve a steep cost that is paid on a daily basis and is rewarded meagerly until the long term, when you can look back and have pride and fulfillment.

You don’t get married primarily because you want a nice wedding. You get married because you want one day to be able to happily look back at all the years you spent together. You have a baby not because you enjoy giving birth. You have a baby because you want one day to look on your grown child and see him or her living a better life than your own. You have a career not for the power, but because you want one day to look back at all that you have accomplished with pride. You don’t have a family so that you can have a career. You have a career so that you can have a family. Feminism has too often missed that basic point.

Men do not outright object to intelligent women. In the 70s women’s lib era, feminists stated that they wanted men to be vulnerable. It wasn’t a new request. The ideal for men is versatility. A man is to be tough when needed, and kind when needed. We expect both from the same man. We always have, and always will. You can draw a line from that male ideal to the female ideal of being strong when needed, and kind when needed. You don’t have to point to the ambiguity in the word critical to recognize that while a man values the intelligence of his female life-mate because of how she uses her brain to help him, he also values her sensitivity to avoid misusing that intelligence against him. If you love him, you don’t want to nag him. You want to help him, as he wants to help you. There is no respectable objection to a smart bride, but no man wants a harridan. Walking that line isn’t easy for any woman. Nor is it easy for a man to be alternately tough and kind at the proper times. We make mistakes, and forgiving the mistakes of our loved ones requires us to bear great costs and emotional burdens. We take on that cost not out of a cruel calculus of maximizing our advantage, but because to do so is love.

Equal rights for women face real challenges today and in the future, but most likely we will not have a complete rollback to the era when women were unable to follow a lifelong career path if they wished, or escape abusive marriages. For the immediate future, we will have more of what we are already seeing: a backlash against the excesses of so-called “women’s lib.” Socially acceptable single motherhood, no-fault divorce, day care for children, and other changes have been mixed blessings for women from the beginning.

True feminists (believing in the political equality of men and women) should not fear the present crisis. They should embrace it. Now is a time to reevaluate and reexamine. Now is a time to learn from the mistakes of the past. Now is a time to craft a new, more effective feminism that can be given to subsequent generations so that they may have better lives, having learned from our mistakes.

Dowd is too pessmistic. The gains of the past need not all be lost, but many can be saved to create a firmer foundation for the future.

Some blogs with interesting reactions to Dowd’s excerpt are: Bumblebee Sweet Potato (†); Intolerantelle (‡); the Anchoress (a rather censorious blog) (§); A Few Thoughts (Elaina M. Avalos) (**); and Almost Girl (††).

Dowd’s book will be published next week. (‡‡)

Massachusetts citizens have had their right to vote on marriage taken away by a court. Now, a well-organized effort is underway to gather the signatures of Massachusetts citizens. Then, if the signature drive is successful, the Commonwealth will hold a vote on whether marriage should be protected. (*)

Power to the people.

On his radio show on September 28, William Bennett said:

But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime you could if that were your sole purpose you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do but your crime rate would go down. So these these far out these far-reaching you know extensive extrapolations are I think tricky.

(*) Bennett purports to be a philosopher. The very act as described would constitute genocide, which is a crime of great magnitude. Therefore, what Bill Bennett said is nonsense on its face.

To “abort every black baby in this country” would not lower the crime rate. Instead it would create a crime wave of unimaginable proportions.

Furthermore, Bennett’s remarks are offensive. His defense of speaking hypothetically doesn’t wash because his remarks were indecent and impolite. (†)

While black people do commit more crimes than average, the proper way of addressing that is to address the issue directly. Is it because of poverty or culture? An open discussion of this or any other public issue should be welcome.

Bennett should not be forced off his radio show because he made his remarks. This is a free country. What is highly likely to occur, however, is that Bennett has shredded his own credibility. Unless he somehow puts out the fire, few people are going to care what he thinks anymore, the show’s ratings will decline, and he will be out looking for work.

As an occasional listener to his show, though not at the moment in question, I can say that Bennett’s credibility with me is shot.

Fox News reports that the marriage protection constitutional amendment is not likely to move ahead soon. (*)

The issue is too esoteric and abstract for most voters, and numerous Congressional representatives and Senators will not support the amendment until there is more pressure for it from the public.

Court challenges in favor of gay marriage continue. Eventually the courts will push the issue further. Another backlash may occur at that time.

Debra Saunders points out that though John Kerry was against gay marriage during the campaign, no one ever called him homophobic. (*)

Bronagh Cassidy composes a thoughtful essay. She writes in part:

My mom was in a same-sex “marriage” for about 16 years. What I want to point out is that it’s so much harder for someone to overcome the gay lifestyle when they are in love. I think they still might be together today if Pat hadn’t died. My mom has told me that at times she had felt she needed to get away from it, but that it was so hard because Pat would cry and they were so dependent on each other. That’s why I think it is very important that we fight same-sex marriage being legalized. It will encourage people to stay in those relationships even if they come to a point where they feel they want and/or need to change.

(*)

The difference between classical marriage and gay marriage is that only one is potentially reproductive. Only that one is essential to the continued existence of the human race.

Law professor and television commentator Jonathan Turley argues in USA Today for the legalization of polygamy. (*) In a time when Muslim immigrants stream into the country, when polygamous splinter groups from the Mormon church grow unhindered, and gay marriage challenges bedrock principles, Turley’s argument strikes at the heart of the matter.

He extends the logic of gay marriage—if this is a free country, I should be free to marry whomever I want—to plural marriage.

Yet, this is not a completely free society. This is a society of law and order, not one of anarchy and barbarism. As a free and good society, we have a right to continue to exist as a society.

Critical to the continued existence of society is society’s internal structure. Cultural anthropologists have found that every society, including ours, bases itself on organizing principles.

If in the name of freedom we deny ourselves the right to organize ourselves into a society based on certain principles, we deny the continued existence of society. Nothing less is contemplated by the would-be gay marriage and polygamy revolution.

Ultimately, the reason is simple why polygamy, gay marriage, and the other challenges to marriage are wrong. Society gives us some freedom, and in return we agree to society’s fundamental rules. One of the fundamental rules is the definition of marriage. If you don’t like the fundamental rules, either endure it or move away. There is no exception for anyone.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer, MD:

After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word “plan” 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry’s pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan — nay, a promise — to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

I’m not making this up. I couldn’t. This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: “If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.'’

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery.…

(*) It would be hard to overestimate the dishonesty, irresponsibility, or recklessness of John Edwards’s statement.

One daydreams about a Kerry-Gephardt ticket.

Krauthammer further points out that contrary to statements in the presidential debates, there is no current “ban” on stem cell research, only a restriction on federal spending. On the other hand, it would be best to ban the embryonic sort of stem cell research and allow the rest.

Even now, after the tragic death of a true man of steel, an inspiring figure to so many, Christopher Reeve, before he is even buried, advocates of stem cell research use his memory to push their agenda. I would have much preferred to have waited for a longer period for public grieving before posting this, but in light of the tactics of unethical research advocates, I cannot remain silent.

This is an excerpt from the October 2004 Reader’s Digest interview with Reeve, conducted months ago: (*)

RD: What’s your position on embryonic stem cell research?
Reeve: I advocate it because I think scientists should be free to pursue every possible avenue. It appears though, at the moment, that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating acute injuries and are not able to do much about chronic injuries.

Of course, Reeve’s permanent spinal injury was a chronic injury.

Should scientists be free to explore every avenue, like Reeve said? Of course not. Doctor Mengele’s experiments on live human beings, for example, were beyond reproach. Science must be ethical.

The ethical problems of embryonic stem cell research are certain. As for the benefits, we know the research will not help quadriplegics like Christopher Reeve, even though advocates use his story as the main reason for doing it. Furthermore, with adult stem cell research (non-embryonic) we avoid the ethical problems and pursue a far more promising avenue of research.

Remember this: both you and I and every other human being was once a small clump of stem cells. At one time stem cells made up 100% of every human being. This research would treat our precious human beginnings in the same way we treat lab rats.

The ombudsman of the New York Times, Daniel Okrent, admits his paper has a liberal bias. He uses as an example the paper’s coverage of gay marriage. (*)

Okrent criticizes the lifestyle pieces on gay marriage run so often by the Times for their lack of objectivity. This echoes my own criticism of the NYT several months ago. (†)

Okrent’s admission is not stunning, but it is stunning in that it occurred at all, and right in the pages of the NYT.

The public is becoming more aware of the media’s lack of objectivity on many important issues. As I discussed before (‡), there may negative consequences for the media, such as loss of public trust.

Update: 26 July 2004. Stanley Kurtz is justifiably proud of Okrent’s oblique reference to him. (§) It’s disappointing that the big media organizations have not interviewed Kurtz. He is perhaps the leading American voice in the fight to uphold classical marriage.

We would-be defenders of marriage, those of us who want to keep the definition of marriage as it is, have a major problem. We need to revise our rhetoric. We are too negative. We should phrase our arguments in positive terms. Here’s what I mean.

Gay marriage is not justified by a simple reference to equality, as Steven Den Beste says. (*) Equality requires like things to be treated alike. The gay marriage debate is over whether same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are fundamentally alike. Proponents of gay marriage fall into the logical trap of begging the question. Den Beste unhorses Andrew Sullivan with dogged, logical insistence that equality is a conclusion, not the starting assumption. Den Beste backs gay marriage on liberty grounds. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Den Beste has nothing to say on whether incest or polygamy should be allowed on grounds of adult consent.

One Fine Jay budges a little on gay marriage. (†) He still supports it, but only on liberty grounds, thanks to Den Beste’s derailing of the equality argument.

OF Jay is particularly concerned with the rumor that the Marriage Protection Act will take something away from the Constitution. He and others should know that that is not true. The Marriage Protection Act would indeed produce a constitutional issue not yet answered by the Supreme Court. The question would be whether Congress has the power to selectively limit appellate review of cases under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. (‡) Legal scholars are mixed in their opinions on this subject. As this specific question has never been addressed by the Supreme Court before, supporters of the Marriage Protection Act cannot be accused of tinkering with the Constitution. We are cautiously exploring the limits, that’s all.

American Politik (§), Den Beste, and OF Jay are greatly concerned with liberty. They support gay marriage on that ground. Their points are made passionately and elegantly.

Yet, there are compelling reasons why we should keep the existing form of marriage as the only form of marriage.

Let’s start with the value of marriage as it exists today: a man and a woman. The non-partisan Institute for American Values has produced an important document listing 21 separate reasons why marriage matters. These reasons are backed up by study upon study, veritable mounds of social scientific research. The document is a readable summary. (**)

Most of the reasons tie in to children. Children who grow up in families with both of their biological parents present, living together, and married, do better on average than children who do not have that advantage. To list a few:

• they have better relationships with their fathers;
• they are less likely when grown to be divorced or become unwed parents themselves;
• they are less likely to be impoverished;
• they are at lower risk of school failure;
• they have better health;
• they have lower rates of substance and alcohol abuse;
• they are at lower risk of suicide; they are less likely to become the victims of child abuse;
• and they have lower rates of mental illness and psychological disorders.

These are the social scientific conclusions summarized by the Institute of American Values, above. Based on data from Europe, children raised in gay households with two adults have the same disadvantages as children who grow up in single parent or divorced homes.

Yes, some single parents do a good job. Yes, some heterosexual, married parents abuse their children. Those are cases that demand our attention, but they are the exceptions to the rule.

The general rule is that children do better on average when they grow up in households with both natural parents present, living together, and married.

Thus, it is not as Kathy Kinsley says, that we need gay marriage to protect children. (††) To most help children, to give them the most advantages, children would be raised by their married mother and father.

I have no objection to seeing the liberty of adults fulfilled That is not the real issue, though. The real issue is how to uphold the best possible family structure we can for children who grow up in the United States. Every single child deserves the best situation possible growing up.

We must institutionalize only the family structure that is most optimal for children. Every other structure, from cohabitation to single parenthood to two gay people living together raising children to adoption and to others should be respected for what they are, but only the family structure of classical marriage should be an institution.

For every child, we seek to give them the best of all possible situations. For some children, single parenthood, adoption, or foster parenthood is the best option. Usually, however, children can be with their married mother and father. We should encourage fathers and mothers to get married and stay married to one another, even if it means reforming our family laws a bit. It’s critical that, if at all possible, children be raised by their married father and mother who live together.

This critical need to give children every advantage outweighs many other needs, including some of the liberty interests of adults. This critical need justifies keeping classical marriage as the definition of the institution of matrimony.

Only the family structure that is best for kids ought to be institutionalized into our law and culture. That family structure is marriage, the institution as we have understood it for eons: the lovely coupling of biologically complementary opposites, a man and a woman, who have among their chosen duties the duty to care for any children they may be blessed to have.

Every child deserves the best, and it is to give every child the best that we ought to continue to maintain the matrimony of a man and a woman as the institution we recognize as marriage.

Note: I have attempted to rephrase the argument to uphold the family structure in entirely positive terms. I have tried to avoid using phrases like “stopping gay marriage” and “protecting kids” here. Those are negative terms. While I have used them before, I think to reach the widest possible audience, and to be true to our ideals, we should cease from futher use of negative phrases. Our argument should be made entirely in positive terms.

I was partially inspired by the web log Insignificant Thoughts because there my fellow web logger did such an excellent job of pointing out how gay marriage would not harm marriage. (‡‡) That is very true, and I did not realize it before. Gay marriage would not harm marriage. The only way marriage will be harmed is if those who care about the family structure abandon it. That decision is made on multiple levels, from politics and public affairs to the personal level. Ultimately, however, it is a single decision for each person to make. I was also inspired to abandon negative language by Dwight at his excellent A Religious Liberal Blog (§§), which I recommend even though I am in disagreement with some of it.

Update: 26 July 2004. A few minor changes in wording.

I have a smart group of readers. I ask you, what is the best argument for gay marriage?

The phrases “stopping discrimination” or “equality” are not arguments. An argument would explain why those things justify gay marriage.

Making an analogy to interracial marriage is also not by itself an argument. An argument would draw the inference that gay marriage is justified, not merely make an analogy.

What is the best argument for gay marriage?

It was recently revealed that no fewer than forty percent of all children adopted in Massachusetts are going to gay households. (*)

Gays make up about 3% of the population.

There has been no explanation for why this incredibly disproportionate and unequal distribution of children is taking place. There should be an explanation.

Update: 23 July 2004. Sunny Days in Heaven comments. (†)

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas:

Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad. Study after study has shown that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father.… [T]he government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous.…

Giving public sanction to homosexual “marriage” would violate this government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children. There is no reliable social-scientific data demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples (or groups) do as well as children raised by married, heterosexual parents. Redefining marriage is certain to harm children and the broader social good if that redefinition weakens government’s legitimate goal of encouraging men and women who intend to have children to get married.

If the experience of the last 40 years tells us anything, it is that the consequences of weakening the institution of marriage are tragic for society at large.…

There is a real question about the future of societies that do not uphold traditional marriage.

(*) Indeed, no society has endured long while it tolerated homosexual marriage. History records no such society. Gay marriage treats society like a science experiment.

Maggie Gallagher quotes Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney:

“Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. . . Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our Constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world’s major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case.”

Then Mitt Romney put his finger on where the error comes from: the limited perspectives of lawyers and judges. “They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights.”

But, he went on, marriage is not solely for adults. “Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.”

The advocates tell us the skies have not fallen in Massachusetts; nothing has changed, they assure us. Romney points out that small things have already begun to change, foretelling the bigger, sadder changes to come. First, the marriage licenses change so they no longer read husband and wife but “Party A” and “Party B.” The Department of Health insists that birth certificates also change. The line for mother and father becomes “Parent A” and “Parent B.…”

In Goodridge the court ruled that something called the “presumption of parentage” is one of the rights of marriage. Until that ruling, there was nothing called the presumption of parentage in the law. The traditional marriage idea was the “presumption of paternity” — that is, the husband is presumed by law to be the father of any baby his wife has.

But how can same-sex marriages really be viewed as the equivalent of husband-and-wife unions if we cling to such outmoded, biologically rooted notions of parenthood?

(†) The presumptiveness of the claim that our civilization has been wrong for thousands of years is more than melodramatic; it is chilling.

Writer Lawrence Auster calls gay marriage “the apocalypse of liberalism.”

Being the final revelation of liberalism, homosexual marriage with its attendant denial of sexual differentiation can only be decisively turned back when we reject liberalism as the organizing idea of society. In this ultimate conflict, there will be no neutral ground.

(‡)

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah:

After Goodridge, which itself came on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to individual sexual autonomy, the choice is no longer between amending the Constitution or leaving this issue to the states. The only choice is between popular resolution of the effort to protect traditional marriage or judicial resolution of this question in favor of same-sex marriage. In the face of this threat, it is flatly irresponsible for elected officials, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to sit idly by as courts corrupt our national charter and advance a social experiment explicitly rejected in state after state, and in every region of the country.

(§) A larger confrontation with the judiciary is brewing.

US Representative from Oklahoma Ernest Istook has a new idea to protect marriage against being redefined by those who want gay marriage. He wants to give the US Supreme Court original jurisdiction in legal challenges to marriage. (*)

That might work if it were limited to challenges based on federal law such as the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I’m not sure if that is more limited than what Representative Istook has proposed. It’s important to limit it to federal challenges, as the federal government currently has no special power to regulate marriage per se.

Original jurisdiction would mean that legal cases of this sort would not work their way up through the court system, but would go directly to the Supreme Court.

The advantage of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court for all federal challenges to DOMA and the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is that such cases would then be on the national radar. There would be no surprise to the public like in the Goodridge case. It would also put the heat on the Supreme Court. If it didn’t rule the right way, more pressure for an amendment or some other confrontation with the High Court could be brought to bear. The administrative burden from what would be a potentially large horde of challenges might force the Supreme Court to issue a blanket ruling that DOMA would hold firm.

Istook’s idea is interesting and should be explored.

As Ron Reagan attempts to leverage his father’s legacy to get federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which would guarantee the destruction of thousands of embryos for no purpose other than medical research, it will be good to keep two things in mind.

First, Ron Reagan himself admits that stem cell research will not cure or even help treat Alzheimer’s, the disease that afflicted his father, President Ronald Reagan. (*)

Second, as Ron Reagan’s brother Michael Reagan reports, Ron Reagan voted for his father in neither the presidential race of 1980 nor of 1984. (†) Michael Reagan also notes that the benefits of stem cell research can all be achieved through adult stem cell research. That way informed consent can be secured from adult donors of stem cells. Using adult, not embryonic, stem cells would eliminate the ethical problem of destroying thousands of embryos without consent for no purpose other than research.

Maggie Gallagher talks to Cassidy, a 27-year-old American woman who was raised by two mothers.

What was it like for Cassidy being raised by two women she called “Mom” and “My Pat”?

“When growing up, I always had the feeling of being something unnatural,” Cassidy says. “I came out of an unnatural relationship; it was something like I shouldn’t be there. On a daily basis, it was something I was conflicted with. I used to wish, honestly that Pat wasn’t there.”

Why does she oppose same-sex marriage? “It’s not something that a seal of approval should be stamped on: We shouldn’t say it is a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they’ve been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their emotional needs — they want to have a child — and they are not taking into account how that’s going to feel to the child; there’s a clear difference between having same-sex parents and a mom and a dad.”

Sounds judgmental in print. But up close, Cassidy comes across as fiercely protective of her mom (Cassidy is a pen name she’s adopted to protect her mom’s privacy). Like many children of same-sex parents, she was expected to defend and protect her mothers from society’s homophobia.

Stop. I need a break. How can the parents of a child expect the child to defend them, the parents? That is backwards. What right do the parents have to expect that their child defend them when to even ask is child abuse? Of course, in reality, one of them was not her parent.

Her own troubled feelings about her family life were clearly unacceptable to her parents. Even now, the prospect of speaking about her own experience gives her the shakes.

Cassidy’s story is not science. It’s just her own feelings. Many researchers say most kids do just fine in these alternative family forms. Cassidy doesn’t buy that research, though. “I don’t think a fair study could be conducted because children currently in that family wouldn’t necessarily be open to speaking their true feelings about it.”

(*) (emphases added) Read this whole column by Maggie Gallagher.

For just a moment, put yourself into Cassidy’s shoes. What would life be like? Treated as a political football, you would be expected to deny yourself and your own humanity in order to protect the parents. You would dare not speak out because the ones who hurt you are your parents.

It’s important that people like Cassidy step forward. It’s important because the truth has to come out before gay marriage is made into a national requirement.

I say “requirement” because children have no choice in who raises them. Of course, every child would choose to be raised by his or her own father and mother, not any other person. Gay marriage means children are not put first.

Every child deserves the best. That includes all of the future children who, in this era of gay marriage, will need a father and a mother, no matter what the media or the government say. Keep Cassidy in mind while you contemplate the future.

MSNBC gives an informative and fair summary of the gay marriage issue. (*)

Now that the constitutional amendment to protect marriage from being redefined by judges has stalled for the moment (†), the focus shifts for the moment to the states. There are many efforts underway in the many states to both advance and stop gay marriage. Stateline.com is tracking the situation in each state. (‡)

The marriage protection amendment will remain an issue until it passes into law or is no longer needed.

Inevitably, should the marriage protection amendment fail to pass, the US Supreme Court will find that gay marriage is a right protected in the Constitution. The efforts of the several states to defend marriage will fall before the will of a handful of judges. To avoid what otherwise will be a certainty, defenders of marriage will have to keep petitioning the Congress for the protective constitutional amendment.

A possible alternative is a legislative solution such as denying federal judges appellate jurisdiction in these cases. That’s worth a try.

Ultimately, this will come down to a showdown, however, between the executive and legislative branches of government on the one side, and the judicial branch on the other. Most likely, neither side will budge. The resulting conflict will be harmful as our carefully mediated system of separation of powers and the judicial veto will all come into question. Indeed, what may be brewing in the overall Culture War is a struggle over the legitimacy of the Constitution itself. The Roman republic fell after about 500 years. Without vigilance, our constitutional republic may fall well before landmark is reached.

The proposed, widely-supported marriage protection amendment states:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Senators Kerry and Edwards did not participate in the procedural vote that kept the amendment off the Senate floor. The effort to bring the amendment to the floor lost 48–50 votes, with a simple majority needed, and 67 votes needed to pass the amendment.

A list of how each senator voted is available. (§)

Update: 17 July 2004. Joshua Baker makes the case that DOMA will not survive without some propping up. (**) To summarize, the pressure for a single, national definition of marriage is enormous. A scheme where marriage is radically different from one state to another—as would be the case if Massachusetts continues to have gay marriage but other states do not—is a scheme unlikely to stand for long. Thus, DOMA by itself will not endure.

Historically, America went through all of this back in the 1800s, when the Mormon Church and Utah were required to ban polygamous marriages as a condition for Utah’s statehood. Minor differences in marriage law from state to state can be sustained over time, but not major differences in the definition of marriage itself.