“World
of Good” Social-Impact Report 2006, http://www.worldofgood.com/impact/index.shtml
A
“social-impact report”? We
have heard of “environmental-impact report”;
for example, one has to be filed with regard to the disposition of
our Montebello Hills before a decision be made about the hills.
A social-impact report would talk about the probable and possible
social consequences of a planned or existing activity.
What
consequences do you see from the following?
In the previous part, we
looked at the usefulness of a SIR with regard to the Federal “No Child
Left Behind” policy. Now we
look at the usefulness of a SIR with regard to the definition of marriage.
Below we have an opinion which acts as an informal SIR.
...A
recent study by economist Ben Scafidi found
that single parenthood and family dissolution costs
California
taxpayers $4.8 billion a year. So
how would same-sex "marriage" impact that cost? If
same-sex relationships in Norway and Sweden as reported in a 2004 study are
a harbinger of things to come in California, male couples will be about 50%
more likely to divorce than opposite-sex couples, and the divorce rate of
female couples will be nearly double that of male couples. And,
according to David Blankenhorn's book, "The Future of Marriage,"
there is evidence suggesting that when states adopt same-sex
"marriage," opposite-sex couples are more likely to decide that
there is no need to get married prior to having children (cause and effect
is an open question, but the correlation is definite). An
increase in single parenthood and family dissolution would be harmful to
children and generate significant additional costs to the taxpayers.
One
of the problems with the [
California
Supreme] court's decision last week is that it didn't consider any relevant
evidence. Unlike interracial
marriage, which has existed for thousands of years, we have no way of
knowing what outcome to expect for a generation of children raised by
same-sex couples. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have prepared
studies designed to persuade courts that all children need are two parents,
not necessarily opposite-sex ones. But the research is statistically and
methodologically weak and insufficient to meet the ordinary burden of proof
for establishing an equal-protection claim. By declaring same-sex
relationships the full equivalent of marriage on the basis of the majority's
instincts, the court has thrust
California
into a monumental social science experiment whose results will not be known
for decades.
Yes, ... the state must regulate marriage; churches or private contracts
cannot do it. But the reason the
state needs to regulate marriage has nothing to do with same-sex couples. It
is all about the natural family. May 22, 2008, “A Social Experiment That May
Fail”, Glen Lavy,
Los Angeles Times.
July 17, 2008