Prop 8 Backers Must Release Strategy Documents to Opponents

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article this morning that has huge ramifications for anyone opposing same-sex marriage. Communications that indicate prejudice against homosexuals may be used to over-rule laws against same-sex marriage.

Judge to Prop. 8 backers: Turn over your papers

(10-02) 18:10 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has ordered sponsors of California's Proposition 8 to release campaign strategy documents that opponents believe could show that backers of the same-sex marriage ban were motivated by prejudice against gays.

Plaintiffs in a federal suit seeking to overturn Prop. 8 - two same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and the city of San Francisco - contend that the measure's real purpose was to strip a historically persecuted minority group of rights held by the majority.

If the courts find that the ballot measure was motivated by discrimination, they could strike it down without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

"The intent or purpose of Prop. 8 is central to this litigation," Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Thursday in requiring backers of the November 2008 measure to give the opposing side their internal campaign communications.
Backers' argument

A day earlier, Prop 8's sponsors told Walker in a court filing that their opponents' claim of anti-gay motivation is legally irrelevant.

In a final round of arguments seeking to uphold the measure without a trial, defenders of the ballot measure said California voters were entitled to amend their Constitution to preserve the traditional, male-female definition of marriage for numerous reasons - including a belief that "extending marriage to same-sex couples carries a risk of weakening the institution of marriage."

Because there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it wouldn't matter if the plaintiffs could show that Prop. 8 "was also accompanied by irrational attitudes such as animus," or prejudice against lesbians and gays, said attorney Charles Cooper.

The initiative, approved by 52 percent of the voters, overturned the state Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry in California. The state court upheld Prop. 8 as a valid state constitutional amendment in May but also ruled that 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the election were legally wed.

Walker has scheduled an Oct. 14 hearing in San Francisco on whether to dismiss the suit or let it go to trial in January.
Judge looks for bias

In previous rulings, Walker has said the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is not an open-and-shut legal question but could depend on a variety of factors, including whether backers were biased against gays and lesbians.

He amplified that view Thursday in ordering Prop. 8's sponsors to disclose documents, including notes and e-mails between campaign officials and consultants, that discussed their strategy and the message they wanted to send to the voters.

Although "voters cannot be asked to explain their votes," Walker said, a ballot measure's authors and strategists can be scrutinized to see what their motives were.

He cited a magazine article last year by the heads of the public relations firm that managed the Prop. 8 campaign in which they discussed their strategy, including plans to show how advocates of same-sex marriage would indoctrinate schoolchildren. Walker said the article undermined the campaign's insistence that its strategy discussions were confidential.
Bad precedent?

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 sponsors, said Friday it was unprecedented to allow "the losing side of a campaign to pry into the most intimate strategy discussions of the winning side."

"This will make any citizen group think twice before attempting a ballot initiative," Pugno said. He said his clients might ask a federal appeals court to intervene.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Theodore Boutrous, said Walker's order would allow them to see whether the justifications Prop. 8's defenders are now claiming for the measure were part of the campaign or after-the-fact rationales.

"Our position is not dependent on the notion that everyone who voted for Proposition 8 was acting out of bad motives," Boutrous said. He said the plaintiffs would look for "evidence that bolsters our argument that Proposition 8 was irrational and disfavors a group in a way that's unconstitutional."

Census Reports 28% Decline in Number of Gay Couples in USA

There is a new AP story out about newly released census numbers for same-sex couples. The numbers are:

2005 -- 780,000 same sex couples, 390,000 considered themselves spouses
2006 -- 780,000 same sex couples, 390,000 considered themselves spouses
2007 -- 753,618 same sex couples, 341,000 considered themselves spouses
2008 -- 563,743 same sex couples, 150,000 considered themselves spouses

(It appears the numbers for 2005 and 2006 were estimates and now the census is collecting real data.)

Notice that:

1) The percent of same-sex couples who consider their relationship to be akin to marriage has gone down from 50% with the 2005-6 estimates, to 45% in 2007 and now to only 27% in 2009. The comparable number for heterosexual couples, according to the Census Bureau, is 91%. The suggests to me that the same-sex couples are self reporting that their relationships are not "just like" heterosexual couples.

2) The total number of same-sex couples has gone down 28% in a four year period. This suggests that the early estimated numbers were too high or that something has caused a net reduction in the total number of same-sex couples.

Of course, that is not the way the AP article is framed, but those are the actual numbers in the story. The AP story seems to be written focusing on the actual number of gay marriages and civil unions versus the the number who consider their relationships akin to marriage and provides an un-sourced explanation in the fourth paragraph that seems to me to be written to support the "gay rights" talking points:

Analysts said the disparities are probably a reflection of same-sex couples in committed relationships who would get married if they could in their states. The numbers are also an indicator of the count to come in the 2010 census, a tally that could stir a state-by-state fight over same-sex marriage, gay adoption and other legal rights.

But when I look at the numbers, I am thinking that the demand for same-sex marriage in the USA has been significantly overestimated, perhaps to support the cause of "gay rights". Alternatively, it could be that the emphasis on same-sex marriage has caused a significant break-up of gay couples in the USA. If most do not view their relationships as akin to marriage, perhaps the new pressure by one of the partners to marry or form a legal domestic partnership is leading to break-ups.

Carrie Prejean at the Value Voters Summit

I am sorry that the only videos that I could find of Carrie Prejean at the Value Voters Summit were on a website that labels this "Comedy". Well, it does demonstrate what she is saying about being mocked. Anyway, I think she is terrific.





Even the Los Angeles Times recognized that Carrie Prejean gave a good talk:

It’s easy to make fun of beauty queens -- their plastic smiles, their bottle-blond tresses, their dreams for world peace. But Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California whose declaration that marriage should be between a man and woman earned her the vilification of some in the gay rights community, provided an unanticipated emotional highlight at a conference of Christian conservatives in Washington today.

In a heartfelt talk that moved some in the crowd to tears, Prejean recounted for the 1,700 activists gathered for the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit in Washington how distressing it was to go from shoo-in for Miss USA to not only losing, but being reviled and mocked for the answer on gay marriage she gave to pageant judge Perez Hilton, the celebrity gossip blogger.

Hat Tip: Elizabeth Evans at Get Religion

LGBT GROUPS CALL FOR NATIONWIDE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

I guess Robin Tyler's plans for a Million Gay March are moving forward. Yesterday SoulForce, the LGBT group that "visits" conservative churches, and Join the Impact, the GLBT group organized in the aftermath of the passage of Prop 8, announced that they have formed a coalition to "take it to the streets" to demand same sex marriage.

In other news, the civil disobedience five day March to Sacramento to demand gay marriage was a bomb. Only 150 people showed up for the rally Monday at the State Capitol according to KCRA. The event was billed as "One Struggle One Fight" and had a civil rights focus to show solidarity with oppressed minority groups, claiming:

"We're not just here for same-sex marriage...we're trying to build a movement and to support others in their fight for social & economic justice!"

But failed to take into account that the legislative offices would be closed Monday for the Cesar Chavez holiday.

Christian Dreamers of the Year 2008

I have two candidates for news stories of Christian dreamers of the year 2008: Stojan Adasevic and Crystal Dixon. Stojan Adasevic is the man who used to be an abortion doctor in what was then Yugoslavia and became an leading anti-abortionist based on his dreams of Thomas Aquinas. Crystal Dixon is the African American woman in Ohio who was fired from her job as a college administrator for writing an Op Ed piece in the Toledo Free Press criticizing the idea that people leading a homosexual lifestyle are civil rights victims comparable to African-Americans.


It seems obvious why Dr. Adasevic qualifies for this award, but you may be wondering about Ms. Dixon.

From her website we learn that Crystal Dixon's inspiration for writing the op ed was a divine mandate with which she awoke one morning:

In early April, 2008, I read an opinion piece by Mr. Michael Miller in the Toledo Free Press entitled “Gay Rights and Wrongs. I absolutely respected Mr. Miller’s right to express his opinion while at the same time, I disagreed with several of the points that he made. One of the freedoms that makes this country great and makes newspapers great, is the privilege of exchanging different points of view via public print communications. Early on Sunday, April 6, 2008, I arose with a divine mandate (you may understand the term as divine inspiration) to write my opinion, based on my Christian faith in response to Mr. Miller’s article. I wrote my personal opinion, based upon my Christian faith, rooted in the foundation of Holy Scripture which is my Constitutional right.

Ms. Dixon is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center and the announcement that she had filed suit was published in early December. I tried to find the op-ed she wrote in the Toledo Free Press, but they do not have an archive function. So here is the copy of the letter that Ms. Dixon has posted at her website.

4/18/2008
OPINION
GUEST OPINION
- The Toledo Free Press
Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective

By Crystal Dixon

I read with great interest Michael Miller's April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs."
I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider.

First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one's personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.


As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded "to set people free... I finally obeyed God."

Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.

The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.

My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God's divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.

Census redefines two parent families

I thought it was great news when I read the headline in this morning's New York Times -- "2-Parent Black Families Showing Gains: Census Bureau Abstract Gives a Portrait of the Nation by the Numbers".

Look at the great graph- what an improvement!

But notice that sneaky wording " better survey techniques"? Reading the actual article one finds:

The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents.

I believe this is what Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy down". I can see why that change might be desired by GLBT lobbyists. However, it obscures the real problems with heterosexual family formation. I am particularly concerned about children who are living with mother and her current boyfriend.

The increase in the likelihood of abuse by stepparents has been demonstrated in studies by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly and is referred to as the Cinderella Effect. In one study they concluded that "a child under three years of age who lived with one genetic parent and one stepparent in the United States in 1976 was about seven times more likely (…) to become a validated child-abuse case in the AHA records than one who dwelt with two genetic parents." In another study of records in Great Britain, they found that "children were beat by stepfathers at a rate of 100 times more than genetic fathers".

I am particularly concerned that the new definition of parent doesn't even require marriage and can include children living with mother and her current boyfriend because of some a comment Jill Woodliff posted at Stand Firm recently:

One phenomenon here in the Mississippi Delta is for the mother’s current live-in boyfriend to keep the refrigerator in his bedroom so that the daughters must yield sexual favors for access to the food. These girls would be far less likely to be abused by their biologic fathers, even in a common law marriage, than by a series of live-in boyfriends. A highly restrictive moral code aimed at controlling sex within marriage, even a patriarchal marriage, would be far superior to the current state.

Read all about 2-Parent Black Families Showing Gains in the New York Times.

College Instructor Defends Blacklisting Over $100 Donation to Prop 8

This article was posted today defending the blacklisting of Marjorie Christofferson, the woman who worked at El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles and made a $100 donation to support the California marriage amendment, Prop 8. The author, Robert Cruickshank teaches political science at a state funded institution, Monterey Peninsula College. Reading through this, I wondered how he could possibly grade students papers fairly. I've added some bolding and interspersed with some links and my comments:

Conservatives Use Proposition 8 To Continue To Foster Cult of Victimhood

By Robert Cruickshank

Conservatives have for decades cultivated a politics of victimhood - presenting themselves as victims of some group, usually liberal and often an oppressed minority, in order to gain sympathy for their insane beliefs and to delegitimize progressive ideas and actions. We're witnessing it on Proposition 8 as well, and now the media is playing along. The result is a massive distortion of the true effects of Prop 8, and the normalization of support for discriminatory policy.

This turns historical reality upside down. According to this worldview, heterosexual marriage is an "insane belief" and something conservatives are seeking to "normalize". I would like to think he is making a little joke, but more likely this is just unacknowledged psychological projection. It is disturbing to think that young college students in California could be graded down if they tried to argue with the ahistorical claims of their instructor.

The specific case is that of Margie Christofferson, who quit her job as a manager at LA's El Coyote Restaurant under pressure from activists and customers angry at her donation of $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Her journey from oppressor to victim has been aided by Steve Lopez of the LA Times, who wrote a deeply flawed column on Sunday casting Christofferson as a sympathetic figure:

Margie Christoffersen didn't make it very far into our conversation before she cracked. Chest heaving, tears streaming, she reached for her husband Wayne's hand and then mine, squeezing as if she'd never let go.

"I've almost had a nervous breakdown. It's been the worst thing that's ever happened to me," she sobbed as curious patrons at a Farmers Market coffee shop looked on, wondering what calamity had visited this poor woman who's an honest 6 feet tall, with hair as blond as the sun.

That sets the tone for a column that blames the victims of Prop 8 for making this poor woman cry, and Lopez isn't above repeating disputed claims that riot police showed up at El Coyote during a recent rally.

Robert Cruickshank is quoting from this column in Sunday's Los Angeles Times, one of the very few pieces that have been published that are sympathetic to supporters of prop 8 in any way. The LA Times ran this photo by Lori Shepler titled "Opponents of Proposition 8 yell at drivers entering El Coyote Mexican Cafe last month" with the article.


You can see and hear the protestors in action in this video:



Now that you have seen who Cruikshank considers innocent victims who have done nothing to make someone cry, we will continue with his analysis:

But perhaps the most troubling part of the column was Lopez' normalization of her support for discrimination:

But I didn't like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience.

"Voting our conscience" has been one of the key methods by which Prop 8 supporters have escaped responsibility for their actions or even acknowledging what Prop 8 was - an attack on the legal equality of thousands of Californians merely for their sexual orientation. When framed this way the Yes on 8 position becomes almost unassailable, immune to criticism. "They're just voting their conscience," we're supposed to think, and not be allowed to ask them to face the realities of what they have done, not be allowed to criticize them for voting to take away equal rights and destroy existing marriages, and not be allowed to act with our own conscience by denying those who backed Prop 8 our patronage. Each of those acts is cast as an aggressive and hurtful act, where the oppressed are cast as oppressors.

No, Robert Cruickshank, the aggressive bullying and the out of proportion reaction to a small value donation are what is being cast in as oppressor behavior. And the distortions of reality, as exemplified in your article.

Lopez mentions almost in passing that "thousands [of gay people] feel as though their civil rights have been violated" but their concerns and views don't get the sob story treatment Margie Christofferson got - even though she knew full well what she was giving money for, and continues to believe that her vote for Prop 8 was the right move. As Lisa Derrick notes she has never apologized to her once-loyal customers for what she did. Obviously she feels no need to offer any such apology.

Lopez' column writes the real victims of Prop 8 out of the story and replaces them with their victimizers. Once again GLBT Californians and their fundamental rights are treated as either deviant or invisible. The only people whose opinions matter are those who oppose gay rights, and if someone dares call it out then they become the oppressors. Standing up for gay rights, for marriage equality, becomes itself an act of hate.

No, Robert Cruickshank, forming a mob outside the restaurant and yelling hateful things are an act of hate.

Margie Christofferson is not a sympathetic figure.

You wish, Robert Cruickshank, she is sympathetic because we can all imagine the horror of becoming the target of this extreme reaction to a $100 donation.

She is someone in deep denial of reality, who is unwilling to reconcile her relationships with her own intolerance. It's not the rest of Los Angeles's job to play along with it, to enable it, to pretend as if it doesn't exist. Doing so merely continues the decades of injustice that comes when good people do nothing and discrimination is treated as normal.

It would be nice if the traditional media would recognize this. It's not likely that they will. Martin Luther King, Jr. may be venerated today but he was a controversial figure in his day who received FAR more criticism from the media than credit, who was told that the March on Washington was a dangerous provocation that should not be attempted. The Civil Rights Movement rightly refused to let such concern trolling stop them. We who are part of the marriage equality movement would do well to learn that lesson.

Of course, Robert Cruickshank ends by claiming a continuity with the black civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, jr. He doesn't mention that most African-Americans do not agree with the parallel he makes between racial discrimination and maintaining the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. In the recent election in California, the great majority of black voters, 70%, voted for Prop 8.

You can read the original here. I left a comment but I doubt it will be approved.

Same Sex Marriage Manger Scene Plan for Christmas in Amsterdam

The city of Amsterdam is planning to have actors portraying two Josephs and two Marys at the manger scene of a Christmas festival planned for Christmas week according to this AP story. Of course, some Christian groups protested but the organizer said it was not meant to be offensive:

Some Christian groups protested. The organization Christians for Truth said the idea "mocks the core concepts of Evangelism."

"By putting Joseph and Mary down as homosexuals, a cracked human fantasy is being tacked on to history from the Bible," the organization said in a statement urging the city and organizers to cancel the event.

The manger, with actors playing the parts of Joseph and Mary, goes on display Dec. 21.

Van Dalen said it was not intended to be offensive, but was meant as a "wink" at heterosexual assumptions.

The article ends on an interesting note:

A study last month found that homophobia is an ingrained problem in the city despite the Dutch reputation for tolerance, and physical attacks on gay men are a weekly affair.

I am not advocating physical attacks on gay men. However, I do want to point out that the people who organized this event may actually be fomenting the problem. The Netherlands already has gay marriage. Why push people's buttons with this mockery of the Christmas story?

Hat Tip to Greg Griffith at Stand Firm in Faith

The Peculiar Case of Dr. Dan Kliman, M.D.

Dr. Dan Kliman's body was found in the elevator shaft of the San Francisco building where he attended classes in Arabic. Classes had been canceled last week, but Kliman apparently was not informed of this. He appeared to have died from a fall. Although the police are saying it was an accident, there is concern that he may have met with foul play. There are signs of a scuffle on the exterior elevator doors on the 7th floor where Kliman took his classes at the Pan Arabic Center according to the photos taken by Dave.



Dave says:

Remember that these are on the EXTERNAL doors that are ONLY on the 7th floor, not on other floors. In other words, the only way that those marks could have gotten there is that if there was some kind of struggle on the 7th floor (the floor of the PAR Arabic School where Dan was going for class), NOT any where else where the elevator car may have been stuck. The police are claiming that Dan tried to get out of a stuck elevator car, but the doors that you see on these pictures are the external doors on the 7th floor, which are stationary and do not move up and down with the car.

But who would do such a thing and why? Kliman was an activist in quite a few causes, and could be quite confrontational. Consider the following causes:

1) Vegetarianism (He was active in the Yahoo Group VeggieJews and is remembered for his contributions to discussions.

2) Bicycle Rights (He founded St. Louis Critical Mass and participated in Bay Area Critical Mass activities after moving here. Critical Mass is the organization that takes over city streets and harasses drivers following traffic rules.)

3) Pro-Israel (co-founder of S.F. Voice for Israel)

4) Gay Rights (recently campaigned against Prop 8).

There is little reason to suspect his advocacy for vegetarianism could have led to his death. His bicycle activism was confrontational and someone who remembers him from his St. Louis Critical Mass days wrote:

Dan Kliman was an acquired taste - many were put off by his strong opinions and loud voice. Others just hated his insistence on asserting his rights as a cyclist. He was certainly an in your face type. I figured if he were to die it would be because a motorist ran him over.

But it is hard to imagine a motorist would have stalked him and thrown him down an elevator shaft.

He did get into confrontations within the GLBT community over his advocacy for Israel. A few years ago, members of QUIT (Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism) posted photos of this angry altercation. But Kliman had recently campaigned against Prop 8 and it is hard to imagine this was committed by someone in the GLBT community.

However, ed, a commenter at Zomblog reminds us:

don’t forget–one of the tenets of radical islam is to throw “unbelievers” off of the tops of buildings

Actually, this is true. I googled and found this post at IslamOnline titled Death Fall as Punishment for Homosexuality. The opinion of Sheikh `Abdel Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef concludes:

Some scholars hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building as a punishment for his crime, but other scholars maintain that he should be imprisoned until death.

Based on the above fact, we can conclude that, the judge is invested with full discretion as to whether this man is to be thrown from a high place or not, as a punishment for his crime. However, if the man survives death fall, the judge has the right to sentence him to death.

But who would do such a thing? Debbie Schlussel has one hypothesis:

On this site, I've repeatedly written about Ismael Ahmed, who founded and for decades ran ACCESS--the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, which has soaked taxpayers for billions to bring in thousands of Muslim illegal aliens, fund their every social service need, defraud Medicaid, and provide job-training for several Al-Qaeda terrorists. Ahmed now runs the Michigan Department of Human Services.

As I've noted, when Ahmed's first wife, an American non-Muslim, wanted to divorce him, he took her on a trip to New York. Suddenly, she was found dead at the bottom of an elevator shaft under construction. He apparently got rid of her and got away with it.

Now, the same thing has happened to Dan Kliman, MD, a gay pro-Israel activist in San Francisco. Like Ahmed's wife, his body was found at the bottom of an elevator shaft under construction, in the building where he was taking Arabic language instruction.

Coincidence? Sorry, but there are no coincidences. Not ones like this. Gay, a Jew, pro-Israel, and American--hmmm . . . a perfect four-in-one target for a Muslim kill

Actually that fall from a tall building thing is Islamic punishment for adultery as well as homosexual behavior. I wonder if this Ahmed suspected his first wife of adultery?

And I wonder how long the San Francisco Police will be able to maintain this was an accident?

Study Shows Minor Rule Breaking Encourages Social Disorder

Science magazine has published the results of some Dutch research showing "that when people observe that others violated a certain social norm or legitimate rule, they are more likely to violate even other norms or rules, which causes disorder to spread." Littering, trespassing and stealing all increased when people saw evidence that others had disregarded social norms.

Supporters of gay marriage often say they can't understand how their marriages could affect others. The answer is that those around us really do respond to social cues. Disorder breeds more disorder, and not necessarily of exactly the same kind. In the Dutch research, one sign of disorder would lead to a very large increase in another form of social disorder. This Dutch study would seem to support the idea that, as gay marriage is seen as a violation of social norms, it could lead to increases in divorces and in children born out of wedlock.

An AP article summarizes the study:

In normal behavior most people try to act appropriately to the circumstances, explained lead author Kees Keizer of the faculty of behavioral and social sciences at the University of Groningen, Netherlands. But some tend to avoid effort or seek ways to gain for themselves.

Things like littering an area or applying graffiti change the circumstances by indicating that others are not behaving correctly, which weakens the incentive for people to do the right thing.

So the researchers were not surprised that people littered more in messy area, for example. But, added Keizer: "We were, however, surprised by the size of the effect."

Here's an example.

The researchers found a tidy alley in a shopping area where people parked their bicycles. There was a no-littering sign on the wall.

The researchers attached flyers for a nonexistent store to the bike handlebars and observed behavior.

Under normal circumstances, 33 percent of riders littered the alley with the flyer. But after researchers defaced the alley wall with graffiti, the share of riders who littered with the flyers jumped to 69 percent.

They did a half-dozen similar experiments, all with similar results.

The other experiments of the Dutch researchers that the AP article provides clearly show that when people saw that rules were not enforced, they generalized this and broke other rules. In one case a sign was posted forbidding locking bikes to a fence, but bikes were locked to the fence. In another case a sign said to return shopping carts to the market, but many carts were left around the parking lot. When people saw that the rules weren't being enforced, they then broke another social norm or rule to avoid the minor inconvenience of following the rule or to obtain a benefit (stealing).

While the study seems to deliver a negative message, Keizer pointed out that "it also shows that municipal officials and the public can have a significant impact on the influence of norms and rules on behavior."

Of course, this also applies to church leaders. What happens when people see rules in the Prayer Book disregarded by the ministers of the church, e.g., gay marriage or, for example, open communion. Ministers think they appear generous by offering open communion, while, in reality, they may be signaling to congregants that rule breaking is accepted in this church. (Hmmm, I wonder if in this circumstance more people would be apt to steal from the collection plate?)

AP summarizes some of the tests:

Test Two:

A fence partly closed off the main entrance to a parking lot. There was a narrow gap and a no-admittance sign that pointed out a new entry, 200 yards away. A second sign prohibited locking bikes to the fence.

When the fence was clear, 27 percent of people heading for their cars ignored the no-admittance sign and squeezed through the gap in the fence. But after several bikes were locked to the fence in defiance of that ban, 82 percent of people going to their cars squeezed through the prohibited entry.

Test Three:

Flyers were placed under the windshield wipers of cars in a parking garage next to a market. A sign on the wall asked people to return their shopping carts to the market.

When the lot was clear of shopping carts, 30 percent of drivers littered the lot with the flyers. But when a few carts were left in a disorderly state around the garage, 58 percent of people littered.

Test Four:

Two weeks before New Year's Day researchers visited a bicycle parking shed near a train station and attached flyers to the handlebars. Under normal conditions 52 percent of the riders littered the shed with the flyers. Then the researchers set off fireworks outside the shed — which residents know is illegal in the period before New Year. Hearing the fireworks, 80 percent of riders littered the shed.

Tests Five and Six:

An envelope with money visible through the address window was placed sticking out of a mailbox.

Under ordinary conditions 13 percent of passers-by stole the envelope.

When the same mailbox was defaced with graffiti the percentage taking the money jumped to 27 percent.

After researchers cleaned the mailbox, but messed up the area around it with litter, 25 percent stole the money.

Conclusion: If leaders want people to "do the right thing", leaders must maintain social norms and enforce the rules.