But beginning in 1996, all that began to change. For the last 7 years, the Dutch out-of-wedlock birth rate has been moving up at a rate of 2 percent per year, twice as fast as the previous rate of increase, and it's very unusual for any country's out-of-wedlock birth rate to sustain a 2-percent per year increase for seven consecutive years. As a rule, that happens when a country is headed toward the Scandinavian system.

Now, the rapid increase in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birth rate coincides exactly with the adoption of registered partnerships and then full and formal gay marriage in the Netherlands. The gay marriage movement in the Netherlands began in 1989. After a loss in the Dutch Supreme Court in 1990, the movement turned from a legal strategy to a public campaign. That involved setting up symbolic marriage registries in sympathetic municipalities and favorable publicity in the mainstream media.

In 1996, when registered partnerships were debated and adopted, the public campaign for gay marriage in the Netherlands went into high gear. That campaign continued right through the adoption of full and formal gay marriage in 2000. And from 1997 through 2003, the Dutch out-of-wedlock birth rate has been moving upward at the remarkably fast clip of 2 percent a year, and the practice of Scandinavian-style parental cohabitation has spread throughout the Netherlands.

In other words, the traditionalist cultural capital that had kept the Dutch out-of-wedlock birth rate unusually low was depleted by a decade-long campaign for gay marriage. In effect, that was a campaign to dissociate the ideas of marriage and parenthood.

So in the four countries with the most extensive experience of marriage-like same-sex partnerships and a full and formal gay marriage, marriage itself is in radical decline and is even on the way to disappearance. For this reason, steps to block same-sex marriage need to be taken in the United States.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Kurtz.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurtz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANLEY KURTZ

My name is Stanley Kurtz. I have a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from Harvard University (1990). My scholarly work has long focused on the intersection of culture and family life. My book, All the Mothers Are One (Columbia University Press, 1992), is about the cultural significance of the Hindu joint-family. I have published in scholarly journals on the subject of the family and psychology in cross-cultural perspective.

I have been a Research Associate of the Committee on Human Development of the University of Chicago, a program that specializes in the interdisciplinary study of the family and psychology. I have also been a postdoctoral trainee with the Culture and Mental Health Behavioral Training Grant (NIMH), administered by the University of Chicago's Committee on Human Development. For two years, I was Assistant Director of the Center for Culture and Mental Health, and Program Coordinator of the Culture and Mental Health Training Grant (NIMH), at the University of Chicago's Committee on Human Development. There I helped train graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. I taught in the "Mind" sequence of the University of Chicago's core curriculum, and also taught a graduate seminar on cultural psychology in the Committee on Human Development. I was also awarded a Dewey Prize Lectureship in the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago. For several years, I was also a Lecturer in the Committee on Degrees in Social Studies of Harvard University. Harvard's Committee on Degrees in Social Studies is an interdisciplinary undergraduate major in the social sciences.

I am currently a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, a contributor to print journals including Policy Review and The Weekly Standard, and

a Contributing Editor at National Review Online. The views I put forward in this testimony are my own, and do not represent the views of either the Hoover Institution, or of the venues in which I publish.

In a recently published article, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" (The Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004), I show how the system of marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships established in the late eighties and early nineties in Scandinavia has contributed significantly to the ongoing decline of marriage in that region. My research on Scandinavia is based on my reading of the demographic and sociological literature on Scandinavian marriage. I have also consulted with Scandinavian scholars, and with American scholars with expertise on Scandinavia.

Shortly, I will be publishing the results of my research on the condition of marriage in yet another country, the Netherlands. That research is based on my reading of the demographic and sociological literature on marriage in the Netherlands, as well as on consultation with scholars and experts on that country. In my forthcoming publications on the Netherlands, I will show that same-sex marriage has contributed significantly to the decline of marriage in that nation.

The research discussed below is drawn from demographic information provided by European statistical agencies, and from scholarly monographs and journal articles by demographers and sociologists expert on the state of the family in Europe. After summarizing the results of my published research on Scandinavian marriage, I shall summarize the results of my soon to be published research on marriage in the Netherlands.

SCANDINAVIA

Marriage in Scandinavia is in serious decline. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out-of-wedlock, as are sixty percent of first born children in Denmark. In some of the more socially liberal districts of Scandinavia, marriage itself has virtually ceased to exist.

When Scandinavia's system of marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships was enacted in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the rate at which Scandinavian parents married was already in decline. Although many Scandinavians were having children out-of-wedlock, it was still typical for parents to marry sometime before the birth of the second child.

While a number of these out-of-wedlock births were to single parents, most were to cohabiting, yet unmarried, couples. The drawback of this practice is that cohabiting parents break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. A high breakup rate for unmarried parents is found in Scandinavia, and throughout the West. For this reason, rising rates of out-of-wedlock birth-even when such births are to cohabiting, rather than single, parents-mean rising rates of family dissolution.

Since demographers and sociologists take rising out-of-wedlock birthrates as a proxy for rising rates of family dissolution, we know that the family dissolution rate in Scandinavia has been growing. We also have studies that confirm for Scandinavia what we already know for the United States-that children of intact families are significantly better off than children in families that experience parental breakup. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were already rising in Scandinavia prior to the enactment of same-sex registered partnerships. Those rates have continued to rise since the enactment of same-sex partnerships. While the out-of-wedlock birthrate rose swiftly during the 1970's and 1980's, those rapidly rising rates reflected the “easy” part of the shift toward a system of unmarried parenthood. That is, the common practice in Scandinavia through the 1980's was to have the first child out of wedlock. Prior to the nineties in Norway, for example, a majority of parents-even in the most socially liberal districts-got married prior to the birth of a second child. During the nineties, however-following the debate on, and adoption of, same-sex registered partnerships-the out-of-wedlock birthrate began to move through the toughest areas of cultural resistance. At the beginning of the nineties, for example, traditionally religious and socially conservative districts of Norway had relatively low out-of-wedlock birthrates. Now those rates have risen substantially, for both first and second-and-above births. In socially liberal districts of Norway, where it was already common to have the first child outside of marriage by the early nineties, a majority of even second-and-above born children are now born out-of-wedlock. Marital decline in Scandinavia is the product of a confluence of factors: contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, cultural individualism, secularism, and the welfare state. Scandinavia is extremely secular, and its welfare state unusually large. Scandinavian law tends to treat marriage and cohabitation alike. Yet the factors driving marital decline in Scandinavia are present in all Western countries. Scholars have long taken Scandinavian family change as a bellwether for family

change throughout the West. Scholars agree that the Scandinavian pattern of births to unmarried, cohabiting parents is sweeping across Europe. Northern and middle European countries are most affected by the trend, while the southern European countries are least affected. Scholarly debate among comparative students of marriage now centers on the question of whether, and how quickly, the Scandinavian family pattern is likely to spread through Europe and North America.

There is good reason to believe that same-sex marriage, and marriage-like samesex registered partnerships, are both an effect and a reinforcing cause of this Scandinavian trend toward unmarried parenthood. The increasing cultural separation between the ideas of marriage and parenthood makes same-sex marriage more conceivable. Once marriage is separated from the idea of parenthood, there seems little reason to deny marriage, or marriage-like partnerships, to same-sex couples. By the same token, once marriage (or a status close to marriage) has been redefined to include same-sex couples, the symbolic separation between marriage and parenthood is confirmed, locked-in, and reinforced.

Same-sex partnerships in Scandinavia have furthered the cultural separation of marriage and parenthood in at least two ways. First, the debate over same-sex partnerships has split the Norwegian church. The church is the strongest cultural check on out-of-wedlock birth in Norway, since traditional clergy preach against unmarried parenthood. Yet differences within Norway's Lutheran church on the same-sex marriage issue have weakened the position of traditionalist clergy, and strengthened the position of socially liberal clergy who effectively accept both same-sex partnerships and the practice of unmarried parenthood.

This pattern has been operative since the establishment of same-sex registered partnerships early in the nineties. The phenomenon has lately been most evident in the socially liberal Norwegian county of Nordland, where many churches now fly rainbow flags. Those flags welcome clergy in same-sex registered partnerships, and signal that clergy who preach against homosexual behavior are banned.

When scholars draw conclusions about the causal effects on marriage of various beliefs and practices, they do so by combining statistical correlations with a cultural analysis. For example, we know that out-of-wedlock birthrates are unusually low in traditionally religious districts of Norway, where clergy actively preach against the practice of unmarried parenthood. Scholars reasonably conclude that the low outof-wedlock birthrates in such districts are causally related to the preaching of these traditionalist clergy.

The judgement that same-sex marriage has contributed to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates in Norway is of exactly the same order as the aforementioned scholarly conclusion. If traditionalist preachers in socially conservative districts of Norway help to keep out-of-wedlock birthrates low, it follows that a ban on conservative preachers in socially liberal districts of Norway removes a critical barrier to an increase in those rates. Since the division within the Norwegian church caused by the debate over same-sex unions has led to a banning of traditionalist clergy (the same clergy who preach against unmarried parenthood), it follows that the controversy over same-sex partnerships has helped to raise the out-of-wedlock birthrate.

In concluding that same-sex registered partnerships have contributed to higher out-of-wedlock birthrates, we do not simply rely on the experience of the Norwegian church. The cultural meaning of marriage-like same-sex partnerships in Scandinavia tends to heighten the separation of marriage and parenthood in secular, as well as religious, contexts. As the influence of the clergy has declined in Scandinavia, secular social scientists have taken on a role as cultural arbiters. These secular social scientists have touted same-sex registered partnerships as proof that traditional marriage is outdated. Instead of arguing that de facto marriage by samesex couples ought to encourage marriage among heterosexual parents, secular opinion leaders have drawn a different lesson. Those opinion leaders have pointed to same-sex partnerships to argue that marriage itself is outdated, and that single motherhood and unmarried parental cohabitation are just as acceptable as parenthood within marriage.

This socially radical cultural reading of same-sex partnerships was revealed in 2002, when Sweden added the right of adoption to same-sex registered partnerships. During that debate, advocates of the reform associated same-sex adoption with single parenthood. Same-sex adoption was not used to heighten the cultural connection between marriage and parenthood. On the contrary, same-sex adoption was taken to prove that the traditional family was outdated, and that novel social forms-like single parenthood, were now fully acceptable.

The socially liberal districts where Norway's secular intellectuals "preach" this view of the family experience significantly higher out of wedlock birthrates than more traditional and religious districts. Therefore, in the same way that scholars conclude that traditionalist clergy keep out-of-wedlock birthrates low in religious

districts, we can conclude that the advocacy of culturally radical public intellectuals has helped to spread the practice of unmarried parenthood in socially liberal districts. These secular intellectuals have consistently pointed to same-sex registered partnerships as evidence that marriage is outdated, and unmarried parenthood as acceptable as any other family form. In this way, we can isolate the causal effect of same-sex registered partnerships as one among several causes contributing to the decline of marriage in Scandinavia.

In the socially liberal Norwegian county of Nordland, where rainbow flags fly on churches as signs that same-sex registered partnerships are fully accepted, the outof-wedlock birthrate in 2002 was 67.29 percent-markedly higher than the rate for Norway as a whole. The out-of-wedlock birthrate for first born children in Nordland county in 2002 was 82.27 percent. More significantly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for second-and-above born children in Nordland county in 2002 was 58.61 percent. In the early nineties, when the debate on same-sex partnerships began, most Nordlanders already bore their first child out-of-wedlock. Yet in 1990, 60.26 percent of Nordland's parents still married before the birth of the second-or-above born child. By 2002, the situation had reversed. Just under sixty percent of Nordlanders now bear even second-and-above born children out-of-wedlock.

That nearly twenty point shift in the out-of-wedlock birthrate for second-andabove born children since 1990 signals that marriage itself is now a rarity in Nordland county. What began as a practice of experimenting with the relationship through the birth of the first child has now turned into a general repudiation of marriage itself.

The figures are similar in the socially liberal county of Nord-Troendelag, which borders on the university town of Trondheim, home to some of the prominent public intellectuals who point to same-sex registered partnerships as proof that marriage itself is outdated and unnecessary. In 2002, 83.27 percent of first born children in Nord-Troendelag were born out-of-wedlock. More significantly, in 2002, 57.74 percent of second-and-above born children were born out-of-wedlock. That compares to 38.12 percent of second-and-above born children born out of wedlock in 1990, just before the debate over marriage-like same-sex partnerships began.

With a clear majority of even second-and-above born children now born out-ofwedlock, it is evident that marriage has nearly disappeared in some socially liberal counties of Norway. In the parts of Norway where de facto gay marriage finds its highest degree of acceptance, marriage itself has virtually ceased to exist. This fact ought to give pause.

THE NETHERLANDS

The situation in the Netherlands confirms and strengthens the argument for a causal contribution of same-sex marriage to the decline of marriage. This is so for two reasons. In the Netherlands, a system of marriage-like registered partnerships open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples was authorized by parliament in 1996, and took effect in 1998. More recently, in 2000, parliament adopted full and formal same-sex marriage, which took effect in 2001. The experience of the Netherlands shows that not only marriage-like registered partnerships open to same-sex couples, but also full and formal same-sex marriage, contribute to the decline of marriage. The particular cultural situation of marriage in the Netherlands, moreover, makes it easier to isolate the causal effect of same-sex marriage from other contributors to marital decline. In effect, the Netherlands shows how same-sex marriage draws down the "cultural capital" on which the system of married parenthood depends.

Marriage in the Netherlands has long been liberalized in a legal sense. Nearly a decade before the adoption of registered partnerships in the nineties, the Netherlands began to legally equalize marriage and cohabitation. The practice of premarital cohabitation is very widespread in the Netherlands, and in a European context, high rates of premarital cohabitation are generally associated with high outof-wedlock birthrates.

Yet scholars note that the practice of cohabiting parenthood in the Netherlands has been surprisingly rare, despite the early legal equalization of marriage and cohabitation, and despite the frequency of premarital cohabitation. Most scholars attribute the unexpectedly low out-of-wedlock birthrates in the Netherlands to the strength of conservative cultural tradition in the Netherlands.

Yet the striking fact of the matter is that, ever since Dutch parliamentary proposals for formal gay marriage and/or registered partnerships were first introduced and debated in 1996, and continuing through and beyond the authorization of full and formal same-sex marriage in 2000, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the Netherlands has been increasing at double its previous speed. The movement for same-sex

marriage in the Netherlands began in earnest in 1989. After several attempts to legalize gay marriage through the courts failed in 1990, a campaign of cultural-political activism was launched. This campaign involved the establishment of symbolic marriage registries-and ceremonies-in sympathetic municipalities (although these marriages had no legal force), and favorable treatment of same-sex marriage in the largely sympathetic mainstream news and entertainment media.

The movement for same-sex marriage picked up steam after the election of a socially liberal government in 1994—a government that for the first time included no representatives of the socially conservative Christian Democratic party. At that point, the movement for same-sex marriage went into high gear, with a series of parliamentary debates and public campaigns running from 1996 through the adoption of full gay marriage in 2000.

In 1996, just as the campaign for gay marriage went into high gear, the unusually low Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate began to rise at a rate of two percent per year, in contrast to it's earlier average rise of only one percent per year. Dutch demographers are at a loss to explain this doubling of the rate of increase by reference to legal changes, or changes in welfare policy.

Some might argue that the "marriage lite" of registered partnerships-open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples can account for the rapid increase in the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the mid-nineties. After all, since the Netherlands allows even heterosexual couples to enter registered partnerships, any children they might have would by definition be born outside of marriage. So it could be argued that had the Netherlands established full and formal gay marriage in the mid-nineties, instead of a system of registered partnerships open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, out-of-wedlock birthrates would have remained low.

It is important to note, however, that the open aim of the gay marriage movement in the Netherlands was always full and formal marriage. Even at the moment when registered partnerships were authorized in 1996, a majority in the Dutch parliament also called for full and formal gay marriage. The Dutch cabinet demurred at that time, for political reasons. Yet the ultimate goal of full and formal same-sex marriage was affirmed by majority sentiment in parliament and by the gay marriage movement itself all along. Moreover, even during the years of registered partnership, the Dutch media continued to treat same-sex unions as marriages. So the symbolic core of the gay marriage movement in the Netherlands was the quest for full and formal marriage-not "marriage lite."

Moreover, Dutch demographers discount the "marriage lite" effect on the out-ofwedlock birthrate. The number of heterosexual couples entering into registered partnerships in the nineties was simply too small to account for the two-fold increase in growth of the out of wedlock birthrate during this period. By the same token, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has continued to climb at a very fast two percent per year since the vote for full and formal gay marriage in 2000. [See the graph attached to this testimony for an illustration of this process.] It must be emphasized that it is relatively rare for a country to sustain a two percent per year increase in the out-of-wedlock birthrate for seven consecutive years. As a rule, this only happens when a country is on the way to a Scandinavian style system of nonmarital parental cohabitation.

In light of all this, it is reasonable to conclude that the traditionalist "cultural capital" that scholars agree kept the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate artificially low (despite the legal equalization of marriage and cohabitation in the eighties) has been displaced and depleted by the long public campaign for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has increased the cultural separation of marriage from parenthood in the Netherlands, just as it has in Scandinavia.

This history enables us to isolate the causal mechanism in question. Since legal and structural factors affecting marriage had failed to produce high out-of-wedlock birthrates in the Netherlands through the mid-nineties, the scholarly consensus was that cultural factors-and only cultural factors-were keeping the out-of-wedlock birthrates low. It took a new cultural outlook on the connection between marriage and parenthood to eliminate the traditional cultural barriers to unmarried parental cohabitation. Same-sex marriage, along with marriage-like registered partnerships open to same-sex couples, provided that outlook. Now, with the 2003 Dutch out-ofwedlock birthrate at 31 percent, and the practice of cohabiting parenthood on the rise, the Netherlands appears to be well along the Scandinavian path.

AMERICA'S PROSPECTS

The experience of Scandinavia and the Netherlands make it clear that same-sex marriage could widen the separation between marriage and parenthood here in the United States. America is already the world leader in divorce. Our high divorce