The Curious Case of the Incurious Economists
by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.
State-sanctioned same-sex marriage restructures the incentives for child-rearing arrangements, and much else. Few are thinking through how people will react.
I recently participated in a round-table discussion about marriage, freedom, and the state. Most of the participants were libertarians and economists. The default position of virtually everyone in the room was a presumption in favor of redefining marriage as the union of any two persons. Normally, economists and libertarians take pride in tracking the changes in incentives as far through society as possible. Yet on the subject of same-sex marriage, these economists seemed uncharacteristically incurious. They seem to think same sex-marriage will affect only the handful of people who 1) currently identify themselves as gay or lesbian, 2) are partnered, and 3) want to get married. My economist friends do not seem to see that redefining marriage will create changes in the social incentive structure for everyone. If I’m right, the behavior of many millions of people could be in play.
Permitting people to form same-sex unions will not be the last change to the legal landscape. The entire culture, including the coercive apparatus of the state, will be pressed into service to promote same-sex relationships as wholly unexceptional. The ultimate goal of these efforts will be to make the gender of one’s partner a matter of no particular significance, a mere coin toss. Society should not only permit same-sex unions, but it should also have no preference at all for opposite-sex unions. This is an undeniable — and I believe unavoidable — consequence of same-sex marriage. The provincial government of Quebec has already outlined its program for combating homophobia and heteronormativity.
This is significant because it will reduce or even eliminate the stigma attached to forming a same-sex union. Therefore, choosing a partner of the same sex will be a live option for everyone, not just for the 3% of the population that currently defines itself as gay or lesbian. We can safely predict that some women will decide that it is easier, all things considered, to team up with a girlfriend for parenting purposes. Think of it: You could have a child through artificial means and an anonymous donor. You can have the legal rights and benefits of a state-sanctioned relationship with a compatible friend. You can avoid the headaches involved with dealing with a pesky man, who, if actually the child’s father, might have his own opinions about the child’s upbringing. The baby can be entirely your project, with a little help from your friend and an accommodating legal and social environment.
A woman in this situation might very well continue to have sex with men. She could have a stable non-sexual relationship with her female partner and cycle through a series of male sex partners with whom she might or might not have kids. The stability of her non-sexual “marriage” with the girlfriend could allow her to have kids with multiple fathers. Instead of marriage being something that attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to each other, this new form of “marriage” will become the vehicle for “multi-partner fertility,” a family form that is fraught with difficulty and complications.
All the incentives for this behavior are being put into place. It is very curious that the economists are not curious about this.
Notice that I’m not saying that women will choose to become lesbians. I’m saying some women will choose to form same-sex unions, regardless of their sexual orientation. After all, we won’t insist that people prove they are gay. Anyone can choose a partner of either gender for any reason that seems good enough to him or her. In fact, a same-sex union need not be a sexual union at all.
In other words, we create the legal institution of same-sex marriage to protect the interests of gays and lesbians, believing their sexual orientation to be an immutable characteristic. But lots of people can change lots of different aspects of their behavior. Hence, what initially appears to be a small change in the definition of marriage to accommodate a few will become a legal innovation that changes incentives for everyone.
You might say, “So what? Women engage in multi-partner fertility right now. What does same-sex marriage have to do with it?” First, calling this twosome a marriage means that the two of them legally count as parents for the others’ children. The biological father is presumably off the hook for any form of child support. A certain type of man will love this, but the rest of us shouldn’t be so cavalier about it.
Again, you might say, “So what?” Why should the government care about these private decisions? Women and children in this situation might get along just fine, and think of all the conflict we could avoid if we could just get the men out of the family. But please realize what this position entails. Parenthood will be completely individualized, with the mother as sole proprietor and the state as a silent partner. Two women doing parallel parenting will be considered the equivalent of two biological parents working together as a team for the benefit of their common offspring. Society would be tacitly claiming that children need nothing from their fathers, a claim which flies in the face of hundreds of studies about the negative impact of father absence. You can hardly claim that this is “no big deal,” or even a position of state neutrality.
You might also say, “Women aren’t going to do that. They are romantics at heart and still want to get married to a man.” If you take this position, you are probably the kind of person who thought no-fault divorce would only lower the cost of divorce for the handful of people who would get divorced at all. Maybe you thought that legalizing abortion would only change the behavior of the handful of cases of rape and incest.
In other words, the economist in me is saying, “Don’t be naïve.” Incentives matter.
Loading ...
I’m sorry, but you’re crazy. The women you fear doing this will do this regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legalized. Besides, with all the incentives with heterosexual marriage, whats to stop two friends from getting married? Nothing. And it’s not a worry because most people view marriage as a long held commitment of love, not incentives. You’re always going to have “freeloaders” no matter what system you enact. Are you seriously arguing that the wrongs of a few should restrict the rights of the majority? That all committed couples should be punished because of a few opportunistic fools? How cruel and downright fascist of you.
Also why are you so concerned about women sleeping around? It takes two to make a baby and pass STD’s. When are you going to start tackling the promiscuity of men, and how it is encouraged, championed and deemed normal in society?
Here is where government has not only a right but a responsibility to chime in on same-sex relationships. If we repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, won’t the next step to be for gay and lesbian “married couples” with one or even both partners in the military to insist on housing in military family housing in order to raise their ‘families’? That thought alone should be enough to make a whole bunch of real married men or women with families want to leave the military in the dust. How scary is that? But, how could one legitimately or even legally say ‘No’ to this as long as gays and lesbians are more than simply accepted into the military, but their rights acknowledged and their relationships affirmed? It seems to me that asking what the real agenda is here with repealing DADT might not be a bad idea, and I can tell you that legally forcing gay marriage in the military is part of it, whether anyone realizes it or not, and that includes our military commanders not realizing this.
Hello, I think the Planned Parenthood booklet now in print for 10 year olds tells the whole story. It tells of the joy of sexual pleasure for all children. It isn’t about same sex partnerships, I have no right to discern the morals of other people, I can care and I can have an opinion though. The reason the left and GLBT want this so bad is so they can then start forcing the education of our children from kindergarten on up. Text books were already in print preparation in California. The 3% want the power to teach their homosexual agenda to the children of the 97%. Very simple. Progressives know what is best for everyone evn though they are a huge minority. The pesky State and Federal Constitutions just keep getting in the way so let’s just bypass those with Judicial fiat. Wake up America, these people are smart, funded and they have a plan for the minds, hearts and morals of our children.
Jennifer, did your remarks have the effect of turning on the light for at least a few of the participants at that round-table discussion?
If SSM is merged with marital status, and the marriage idea is officially supplanted by the SSM idea, there will be no firm basis for discriminating between marriage and the very broad range of types of relationshps and types of living arrangements that are now safetly in the nonmarriage category.
Marriage would come to mean less and less and less until its special status is neutralized. This is not really a slipper slope: SSM is a push over the cliff’s edge.
When there is no longer anything special to note about marriage, it no longer can sustain a special status in the law nor in social policy nor, even more tragically, in the culture. The logical conclusion of SSM argumentation is that all forms of family structure must share the same status as that of the married mom and dad. This defines marriage down.
It may actually incent Government to get out of the marriage business. Or rather, to become the silent partner (or perhaps not so silently intrusive partner) is the nonmarriage business.
Or, rather, to expand the nonmarriage business at the expense of marriage.
When are you going to start tackling the promiscuity of men, and how it is encouraged, championed and deemed normal in society? Ah, nerdy girl, what do you think the abstinence movement is trying to deal with? what do you think the anti-pornography movement is trying to deal with? The ruth institute is all over those issues.
the point of the article was that redefining marriage, with all those benefits and all that social approval you keep talking about, will put incentives into place that will change all kinds of people’s behavior. It is irresponsible to change the law without at least considering the possibility that the law will do things you dont’ expect. calling me a fascist isn’t really a response to an argument. it is an attempt to shut down argument, and i dont’ appreciate it.
I don’t see posts about the problem with men having one night stands. I see plenty of posts on the subject concerning women. I don’t see posts about the problem of men fathering children outside of marriage, but you bring up women raising children without men in almost every post. And this is tackling mainstream society’s view of men’s sexuality and responsibility? It challenges nothing, it questions nothing. You don’t try to bring men into accountability, you just keep blaming women. It’s not men’s fault, feminism must have done this to them. Bull. Are men are so fragile that the concept of social, political and economical equality with women spiraled them into this state of irresponsibility. No, of course not. Humans are however lazy, and we have a society that still refuses to let go of outdated sexism because it’s easier then facing reality.
As far as changing peoples behavior, as a society we can only hope that it changes for the better. Plenty of people cried over giving women the right to vote, how it would ruin society. The civil rights movement was supposed to ruin society too. And interracial marriage? Oh my, STILL there are people who think its wrong (google Keith Bardwell). Have any of these things actually ruined society?
Here’s the hilarious thing. There are so many things that feminists and you are both against. Neither groups like the mainstream media, double standards with male promiscuity, societal pressure on teenage girls to have sex, etc.
Yes, the fascist comment was out of line and had no place in that comment. I take it back and apologize. I still find your viewpoints cruel and insensitive, if not down right bigoted. Not even for not agreeing with same sex marriage, but because you don’t seem to have any respect for people who choose a lifestyle different then your own.
I personally have great respect for people who choose a different lifestyle. But I have nothing but disdain for those who choose a different lifestyle — and then try to force everyone to pretend that all lifestyle choices are equal, as if they didn’t really choose anything different after all!
Dare to be different, if you must. It’s your choice.