More London trouble expected tonight for Valery Gergiev

More London trouble expected tonight for Valery Gergiev


norman lebrecht

November 06, 2013

The veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is planning a mass picket of the conductor’s Barbican concert tomorrow with the London Symphony Orchestra, Pink News reports.

Last week, Tatchell was removed from the Barbican stage after making a statement protesting against Gergiev’s alliance with Vladimir Putin, whose government has passed an anti-gay discrimination law. Gergiev has dissociated himself from the law, but is tainted by association with Putin, who has built him a splendid new opera house and awarded him state honours.

Russian President Putin presents a Hero of Labour award to Mariinsky theatre director Gergiev during an awards ceremony in St. Petersburg



The moral imperative here is ambiguous. While the Russian law is disgusting and deserving of protest, nothing in Gergiev’s record shows any sign of prejudice against minorities. On the contrary, there is much to indicate that he promotes them at the Mariinsky Opera. In a word, he’s pro-gay.

My judgement is slightly swayed however, by the reaction of a member of last week’s audience. The friend, a journalist and festival organiser, said she was unaware of the extent of anti-gay legislation in Russia. ‘I was really glad to have been informed (by Tatchell),’ she said.

I guess that clinches it.



  • Alex says:

    Gergiev is an outspoken supporter of Putin. You cannot be ‘pro-gay’ and an outspoken supporter of Putin.

    • Michael Schaffer says:

      I think you probably can. The situation in Russia is very complicated and being anti-gay is not everything that Putin is about. Not that it makes that any better, of course, but I think there are a lot of very massive problems in Russia right now and those who generally support Putin, as Gergiev does, maintain that without him, things would be much worse, they would be total chaos.

      Gergiev talks about this briefly here at 35:20:

      So maybe in an ideal world, Gergiev would like to have someone in charge who keeps things under control, like Putin, but without the anti-gay stuff. But we don’t live in an ideal world, not in Russia, not anywhere else.

      • PR Deltoid says:

        “without [Putin], things would be much worse, they would be total chaos”

        The main opposition to Putin comes from the Communist Party on one side, and from various nationalists and/or fascists on the other. Both of these options would likely be much worse than Putin.

    • Steve Foster says:

      I’m afraid the burden of proof falls on you with a statement like that.

      See: Furtwängler

  • Dennis says:

    This whole “controversy” about Gergiev is simply self-righteous grandstanding by people who have nothing better to do with their time. For the record, Russia did not pass an “anti-gay” law (no gays are being arrested, rounded up into prison camps, or in any way discriminated against), it merely passed a law prohibiting homosexual propaganda (especially aimed at kids). Certainly a nation has the right to do what it can to preserve its traditional values that express its Orthodox Christian culture and history.

    • PR Deltoid says:

      The fact that numerous other countries have similar or harsher anti-gay laws (Lithuania, Singapore, etc etc), yet do not receive anything like the media campaign or condemnation directed against Russia, suggests that the main driver here is geopolitics rather than concern about human rights.

    • Halldor says:

      “Homosexual propaganda”. Please, can you explain what that means?

    • Martin says:

      I can understand that the Russian public doesn’t want gay marches or the constant mentioning of the gay topic, but disallowing adults to educate minors about homosexuality is unacceptable, discriminating and needs to be condemned.

      Gergiev is an outspoken supporter of the most powerful man in Russia. Without Putin’s backing this law would not be in place. Gergiev takes millions from “our” money, if we disagree with his choice of friends, we should be allowed to let him know.

  • Alex says:

    Dennis & Deltoid: tell that to the parents of children arrested, beaten, tortured or murdered in Russia for being gay. Your comments are not just complacent, they are inhuman. And yes, conductors supporting other brutal, oppressive, fascist regimes should also be protested against.

    • PR Deltoid says:

      “Your comments are not just complacent, they are inhuman” Sounds like you didn’t actually read my comment. I said nothing in favor of this law, or of violence against gays. I believe my point stands. Why does Russia get so much condemnation, while media and celebrities are silent on the equal or worse abuses happening elsewhere? Have you heard of musicians refusing to perform in Lithuania while their anti-“gay propaganda” law is in force? Have Tatchell or Stephen Fry held protests at the Lithuanian or Singaporean embassies? If you can find me examples of that, I’d be glad to know.

      • Sascha Maisky says:

        Mr PR Deltoid,

        With respect, I believe you are unaware of the implications held by some of the statements made above. A law prohibiting any public manifestation of a person’s sexuality is a flagrant violation of their human rights and certainly qualifies as discrimination. Furthermore, having been accorded governmental complicity, homophobic violence has become rife to a shocking degree. To the point made by Alex earlier, “homosexual propaganda” is an inherently flawed term. Homosexuality is not a persuasion in the same sense as a religious or political alignment. It is not subject to a belief system and is not contingent on conversion or lack thereof. It also implies an element of deceit on the part of homosexuals or sympathisers, as though manifestations of their sexuality have a hidden and sinister agenda. I hope you realise how dangerous and parochial this perspective has proven to be. All of that being said, I agree that the degree to which Russia has received a great deal of attention over this issue is due to the current geopolitical landscape. As for Gergiev, one would hope for more dissidence from a great artist, but one shouldn’t be foolish enough to expect or demand it.

    • David H. says:

      Yes, gay hate crimes are horrible.

  • Alexander Hall says:

    Although I sympathise with Peter Tatchell’s intentions, I cannot really see what he was hoping to achieve with his initial one-man protest. Help gays in Russia? Put Gergiev in the dock? Attack the LSO? Where I draw the line, however, was in seeing the LSO’s co-principal trrumpet striding up to Tatchell at the front of the platform and kicking him. I’m beginning to think that Putin’s illiberalism has begun to rub off on the LSO. Not the sort of image you want a community of musicians to have.

  • ruben greenberg says:

    Gergiev should be punished for his views by being forced to show up on time for rehearsals and being made to actually rehearse.

  • Hank Drake says:

    I am absolutely fine with protests/picketing taking place outside the hall, and in the line of sight of attendees. I am not ok with disruptions of actual concerts.

    • Mark says:

      “I am not ok with disruptions of actual concerts.” I have to disagree on that. I am a regular concert goer and an artist and someone protesting in this way would affect me as well. However, I am very much against the classical music world distancing itself from what happens outside of the concert hall.

      I know that orchestras cannot live without large scale funding which can usually be delivered only by a state – democratic or not. But then do we really and ostensibly have to ignore the real world around us? Isn’t that what makes us less relevant to the larger audience than the pop artists who are much better at responding to the real issues of the modern world (poverty, wars, human rights abuse etc)?

      Come on, let’s look at our record. We are quick to get in bed with the powerful and the rich and turn a blind eye to some shabby deals done behind the curtains. Just look at those examples: Karajan’s “forgotten” Nazi past, World Orchestra for Peace having no problems with Gergiev conducting a concert in South Ossetia just meters from prison camps during Georgian-Russian war, Dudamel supporting Chavez, and yet having no problems with earning US dollars in Los Angeles (and sorry, but as someone who lost part of my family under the Stalinist terror I find it rather offensive seeing him smiling and dancing malambo-style on the podium to the music of Shostakovich 10 which represents the worst mass-murderer in history), Kristjan Jarvi happily taking money from Gasprom’s Nord-Stream to make a good PR with his Baltic Youth Philharmonic for a gas pipeline project which is controversial on both political and ecological level.

      It seems that the integrity with which Toscanini refused to perform for Nazis in Bayreuth or to perform the Fascist anthem at a concert in Italy (for which he was beaten) is now a thing of the past.

      • Alexander Hall says:

        Unfortunately, musicians are no better human beings than the rest of us. It could be argued that a fair proportion of them are so consumed by their own self-importance and desire for fame that they allow nothing to stand in the way of their careers. In the Russian case, there are particular mitigating circumstances: the country is run by a modern tsar and democracy is a concept alien to a man like Putin. Now imagine you are an extremely talented instrumentalist or vocalist or conductor and that stepping out of line is going to imperil, if not curtail, your career. How many of us would be prepared to act as martyrs in a situation like that, simply in order to occupy the moral high ground? I’m afraid you need to listen to people who have lived through dictatorships in order to understand why the survival instinct is so much stronger. As Bertolt Brecht – and he knew all about dictatorships – once memorably said, “Erst kommt das Fressen und dann die Moral”.

        • Mark says:

          I did live in an absolutist state. Maybe you could explain to some extent such artists, but not the Western institutions and agents who employ them. NB People like Rostropovich or Ashkenazy or Toscanini did make the right choices under much more ruthless circumstances.

  • R. James Tobin says:

    “Gergiev has dissociated himself from the law, but is tainted by association with Putin…”

    Guilt by association is despicable.

  • harold braun says:

    Just another storm in a teapot!

  • Mikey says:

    No concert was “disrupted”. Mr. Tatchell made a short speech BEFORE the concert.

    The law in Russia is not “to protect children”, nor to “forbid the promotion of homosexuality to children”.

    The law is to oppress LGBT people in every way possible.

    Simple BEING gay and in any way shape or form it being known while POSSIBLY in the presence of a minor contravenes this new law.

    Any LGBT person in Russia who has a young cousin, or younger sibling, is in effect breaking this law simply be existing.

    It is forbidden to mention LGBT existence in a positive light without contravening this law. Which means that countless young LGBT people will NOT be getting the support they require to grow into successful and healthy adults.

    But you’re absolutely right. “Propaganda” of that type has to be stopped, right? At all costs? like the LGBT people who were attacked at gunpoint this past week at an HIV/health clinic, simply for being LGBT. What exactly was their crime?

    Let’s not protest the Nazi’s actions toward Jews. It’s their culture after all. We should respect that. Germans should be allowed to have their national identity. So what if it affect a tiny portion of the German population? All the Germans want is for the Jews to be invisible. That’s not so bad, is it? It’s not like they’re going to go out and KILL the Jews, is it?

    Sound familiar?

    For SHAME, and absolute disgust at those in this thread and on this blog who would rather say nothing, make no waves, turn a blind eye, than speak up against terrible injustice. For shame!

  • John says:

    I’m totally sympathetic to the plight of LGBTI people in Russia and all over the world. Of course, protests of this sort are not new. Consider that an entire nation (Israel) banned performances of Wagner’s music because of his hateful writings against Jews and the subsequent championing of his music and ideas by the Nazis. That said, his music is performed and celebrated nearly everywhere else on the planet, and often by Jews. So should the rest of the world follow Isreal in boycotting Wagner performances? Should we ban the poems of Ezra Pound (another bigot) and keep them from being read aloud in public places? And in another story playing out right now, should we read books by Orson Scott Card, a very famous and accomplished writer who has put his own homophobia on display?

    This is a discussion I used to have with each of my music history classes. What do you do with great artists who might hold repugnant views?

    In Chicago in the late 1970s I was forced to choose whether to walk through a group of protesters at a performance of Tristan und Isolde. I chose to walk through, probably because I had paid a lot of money for my ticket and this was also likely that it would be only chance I’d have to hear Jon Vickers sing Tristan. But most the protesters I walked past outside the Lyric Opera that night had numbers tattooed to their wrists. And yes, I did walk past them and into the theater and reveled in the music drama of that bigot Wagner. Vickers was superb, Leitner’s conducting unforgettable. But I’ll also never forget that experience and I’ll never forget the choice I made.

    I’m not sure what point I’m making here, or what side I’d take with regard to Gergiev. Certainly Furtwangler and Karajan begged some of the same questions in their time. It’s a complex issue, though, this business of great artists and their sometimes awful views and/or associations. In the end, I think it boils down to making choices you can live with, just as I did that night at the Lyric Opera.

  • What is the actual wording of the law?

  • Malcolm James says:

    Gergiev isn’t anti-gay, just a complete opportunist. Much like Karajan with the Nazis.

    • Bad analogy: Putin’s regime does not commit genocide.

      • Harold Raitt says:

        Bad reply, Norman. Hitler’s regime did not commit genocide in 1934, 1935, 1936 …

        Putin’s regime does not commit genocide. Hopefully it never will. Putin’s regime does engage in human rights violations which bear comparison with the early 1930s. It is our responsibility to ensure that our voice is heard to ensure that the situation does not worsen.

        Complicity with a *worsening* human rights situation can simply not be tolerated.

        • Kit says:

          I think that’s the heart of the issue: whether the human rights situation in Russia is in fact worsening relative to how it has changed over the past 50 years, as well as in relation to the current social, political and economic challenges facing the country.

          It’s clear that there have been some disturbing trends in recent years, including the one under discussion. However, if you are going to make comparisons with Nazi Germany – which is a stretch for a country so different on so many levels and as complex as Russia – there’s a lot of justification to be done.

          I’m not going to defend Putin, but I’d at least be inclined to agree with Gergiev that given the political pressures currently in play in Russia, things could be worse under different leadership.

          • Harold Raitt says:

            I would of course say that human rights in Russia today are better, generally, than in 1963. But they are worse than in 2003. Gergiev – through his silence, his comments on paedophilia, and his comments on Pussy Riot – condones this.

            If you doubt the effect Gergiev would have if he actually stood up and defended the rights of his gay friends and colleagues, simply ask yourself why he hasn’t already just done so …

  • Richard hardnell says:

    Some years ago Gergiev did a concert with the World Orchestra for peace. The main funder was Arcadia Gaydamak (unfortunate name) Gaydamak was at the time on trial in his absence in France for selling weapons from the ex USSR to Angola, where hundreds of thousands died.

    Gergiev was more than happy to take part in this event. The man clearly had no scruples about taking money from a mass murderer- Gaydamak was found guilty in the Frebch court.

  • Peter says:

    Gergiev is not an ‘opportunist’. His relationship with Putin is a necessary one to keep money flowing to the Mariinsky. Whatever his politics, Gergiev is ultimately responsible for the livelihoods of over 1000 people. There are plenty of stories of people who have lost their businesses or even been imprisoned for getting on the wrong side of Putin. Best be on the ‘right’ side.

  • hardnell says:

    It would be very interesting to see what the World Orchestra for Peace have to say about their very own conductor Gergiev, who was really happy to take money from a person who had made his fortune from death- the links provet this

    • David H. says:

      He didn’t take the money alone, the orchestra took the money as well. Try again. Haters gonna hate.

    • Jon says:

      A quick search on the internet shows that the World Orchestra for Peace concert was held in 2008, a year before Arcadi Gaydamak was convicted in absentia, so there would appear to have been no reason for the Orchestra or Gergiev to refuse the funding for the concert at the time.

      Furthermore, Gaydamak’s conviction was subsequently overturned by the French Court of Appeal in 2011. So your contention that Gergiev was happy to take money from a convicted murderer doesn’t really hold water as he wasn’t convicted at the time and has since been acquitted.

  • Mikey says:

    Norman Lebrecht said: “Bad analogy: Putin’s regime does not commit genocide.”


    Or that you know of.

    But for the time being Putin’s regime IS turning a blind eye to violence by its own police and military against LGBT citizens. Violence brought about by the only fact that these citizens are LGBT. Violence such as being shot at (a victim of such violence lost an eye this week), beaten (there are countless videos of these beatings), etc…

    Valery Gergiev has said that he supports the law.

    THAT should be enough for him to be criticized.

    From your previous writing, Mr. Lebrecht, you would appear to not be a particularly strong supporter of LGBT rights. This is a shame. All people deserve equality and respect. Period.

    • Utter nonsense. What gives you the right to grade me as ‘not a particularly strong supporter of LGBT rights’? I campaign daily against injustice of all kinds. And I repeat: Putin is not Hitler, nor Stalin.

  • Mark Mortimer says:

    I think this is all blown out of proportion over Gergiev.

    The level of homophobia, and its repercussions, is shameful in contemporary Russia for sure. But what has it do with Gergiev? He has strongly denied that he is homophobic. He is a musician, charismatic albeit controversial. He does not have the power to change state legislature on homosexuality- to claim such would be absurd. Its like blaming Karajan and Furtwangler for the Nazi death camps.

    He may share views with Putin privately, but as far as I’m aware he has never made these views public. As Peter rightly observes, he has probably befriended Putin, partly to get desperately needed funding for the arts in Russia.

    Peter Tatchell is, in certain respects, a brave moral crusader, but he is also immensely irritating. Here I feel he is picking on the wrong man.

  • I love this “Either you feel as passionately about it as I do or you’re an insufferable bigot”.

    Give us a break.

  • hardnell says:

    can we please keep to the discussion as to what Gergiev’s views are, as opposed to misinterpreting NL’s.

    The fact that Gergiev was happy to receive funding from a murdered in 2008 for his other orchestra World Orchestra for Peace, suggests that the man has absolutely no scruples whatsoever

    • David H. says:

      You are on a crusade with your little tin drum, aren’t you? Was the money for Gergiev personally or was it for a certain purpose? Are you aware of the motto this concert was taking place under? Do you know Gergiev was aware of all the details of the financing of the concert, including the troubled biography a main sponsor, when the deal was made? Unlikely…

  • Elizabeth Owen says:

    Why on earth don’t protestors go to the Russian embassy to vent their spleen against Putin? Oh that’s right they might get arrested so let’s go to the Barbican instead a soft target. How many artists have been targetted because of Blair’s war policies? Gergiev as you say is responsible for many employees and has to walk a tight rope in order to get Government funding.

    Sparklers? Good grief.

  • Pixy Harris says:

    In view of the behaviour of Defra and the NFU over the brutal massacre of badgers, I would say that the British are in no position to criticize Putin, who does at least maintain order and certain traditional values in his country.

  • hardnell says:

    maybe the director of the world orchestra for peace should answer these questions, after all Gaydemak was found guilty, and Gergiev’s ensemble happily. took the money

  • Mikey says:

    (N.B. for some odd reason, despite pressing the “reply” button, my posts keep getting sent to the bottom of the page as though I were posting new responses)

    Norman Lebrecht said: “What gives you the right to grade me as ‘not a particularly strong supporter of LGBT rights’? I campaign daily against injustice of all kinds. And I repeat: Putin is not Hitler, nor Stalin.”

    What does? Well, your insistence that a concert is more important than human rights, for one. How dare an activist stand up before a concert, before the conductor has even approached the stage, and make a speech about human rights. It is completely unacceptable to upset poor paying concert-goers with the reality of human rights abuses.

    And I repeat: Putin is not Hitler or Stalin – YET. Neither Hitler nor Stalin started there “political” careers with genocide. But they built a good, solid foundation of hatred and intolerance, from whence to launch a genocide. This is exactly what Putin is doing.

    Your naiveté is galling.

    • Then go gall elsewhere.

    • PR Deltoid says:

      “And I repeat: Putin is not Hitler or Stalin – YET”

      Obama is not Hitler or Stalin – YET. But with his murderous drone strikes, his snooping on US citizens, his persecution of whistleblowers, he is building a good solid foundation for seizing absolute power.

      See, two can play that game.

      • Greg Hlatky says:

        President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2009. Furthermore, I am informed by my betters, criticism of him is due to racism. Off to the re-education camps with you!

    • David H. says:

      Putin’s policies cost much less lives and are more peaceful than those of the governments in London and Washington. You should take a deep breath and consider, that regarding Putin you have been fed nothing but propaganda that is driven by geopolitical agendas. Russia has huge problems and Putin is not the ideal enlightened leader we might wish for, but his policies are much better for the future of this planet, than what is happening in the Anglo-American Imperial headquarters. Chill out. Your genocide allegations are hysterical.

  • John says:

    Gergiev has responded in this morning’s NYTimes

  • I was decorated by Moldova’s then president Vladimir Voronin for my conducting and musical educational work. I had a good relationship with him and his government. This DOES NOT mean that I am a supporter of his policies. Judge Mr. Gergiev by what HE does and what HE says not the people for whom he works. When you have worked in such countries you will realise that it is a great deal more complicated than Mr Tatchell suggests.

  • Jamesay says:

    Why don’t we all calm down, sit with a cuppa and watch this …

  • cabbagejuice says:

    @Jamesay Utterly outrageous insinuating that prejudice is the basis for considering marriage a union between man and woman as it has been for millennia as an important pillar of civilized society. Even more astounding is disabusing children of the idea that a mother and father are important, where they issue from biologically and the familial ties that comprise the outer envelope. Exploding the atom of the family is a dangerous proposition at best and a nuclear social disaster at worst.

    Protecting children from this kind of phony science and moral confusion is at the basis of the Russian parliamentary restrictions (not only Putin but voted 100%) on what adult nonsense one can cram into their minds. (Better to free brain space for math and music!) Kids cannot appreciate the true meaning of marriage and its important connection to society and history, therefore do not have the means nor knowledge to make decisions.

    It seems like so-called educated adults don’t have a clue either.

  • m2n2k says:

    Just a reminder for those who are forgetful: . For better understanding of that infamous Russian law, see Mikey’s comment above (November 6 at 11:11 pm).

  • cabbagejuice says:

    m2n2k We have been through this before, no need for a reminder. Your cited article has NO facts or figures, just a heap of feel good rationalizations.

    It’s surprising for the NYtimes to be so unPC but a father/mother wrote in an article “Being a ‘motherless’ child in an open adoption is not as simple as it looks, because there is a birth mother, who walks in and walks out of the lives of our children. And when she is not physically there, she is — as we know from many accounts of adult adoptees — still present in dreams, fantasies, longings and worries.’

    Only rank selfishness can condone such playing around with the psyches of children. Just because in some self-serving well-funded survey, children who live with same sex couples (not parents) are more tolerant of diversity, doesn’t mean they are emotionally happy nor healthy.

    Robert Lopez (raised by a lesbian couple) wrote: “Even the most heroic mother in the world can’t father. So to intentionally deprive any child of her mother or father, except in cases like divorce for grave reasons or the death of a parent, is itself a form of abuse… It is abusive to tell a child, “We are your moms” or “we are your dads,” and then expect the child never to feel the loss of such important icons, in addition to the injury of having been severed from at least one, and possibly both, biological parents—not because it was necessary, but because the two adults insisted on the arrangement. The lessons children learn from this undermine selfhood: might makes right, little people are subject to the whims of self-serving parents, and powerful people can impose “love” on weaker beings with money or political influence over adoption agencies, family courts, sperm banks, and surrogate mothers.”

    Thanks to “that infamous law”, such injustices against children will not occur in the former Soviet Union.

  • m2n2k says:

    Thank you, cj, for providing a link to that thoughtful article by a gay parent. It confirms the findings of the study that i referred to by stating unequivocally: “Social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment. Kids of gay dads (and lesbians) do just as well as kids of moms and dads. Being a good-enough parent counts for gay people, just as it does for straight people.” The article talks about difficulties of growing up with same-sex parents that are, in principle, no different from those encountered by any minorities in such societies where majority has not yet learned to accept equality and respect those who are different. Considering the level of homophobia that still exists, it is almost miraculous that there are not more negative effects on children of same-sex couples, but it certainly shows extraordinary love and care that those parents give to their children. The article’s author then concludes: “The outside world says time and again — you are not like us. We have to give our kids the chance to give voice to that vulnerability, and to acknowledge the sad and complicated feelings of being different. (And show the pride in that as well.)” Can’t agree more. Having said that, i would like to reiterate two points in response to cj: 1) Marriage is not a tool for procreation, and procreation does not require marriage, which is why there are millions of totally legitimate childless marriages and millions of wonderful children born outside of marriages; 2) The Russian law that is in question here is not about marriage at all, but about denying LBGT people the right of openly being who they are.

  • cabbagejuice says:

    @m2n2k Even without academic studies commonsense would dicate that biological relations and roles of father and mother must have acute psychic implications for children and society in general. To mess around with that is a social experiment whose implications have not been fully grasped yet but can be predicted – feral children without real ties cut off from historical and hence emotional connections.

    People who would like to skip over or reinterpret the very specific prohibitions in Leviticus or what Paul said, cannot ignore the elephant in the room, the exhaustive lists of who begat whom. This is HISTORY, the core of civilization.

    Anyone who remembers the film “Roots” can appreciate the lengths Kunta Kinte went to find the village chronicler who kept the oral history of who begat whom. This seems to be a vital human need that the slaveowners tried to play down but could not eradicate.

    But if you want studies, try this one:

    “The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents).”

    It is known that monogamy is not one their strong points, another argument not in their favor: “The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.”

    As for wonderful children born outside marriage, criminality has such a high incidence of coming from broken homes that it is as I mentioned above, commonsense.

  • m2n2k says:

    One point of partial agreement: there is no doubt that children raised in “broken homes” are definitely at a disadvantage; however, one should not forget that overwhelming majority of them come from heterosexual parents. No, I do not want more studies which is why I thank you for continuing to refer to the same one. All I know is that the one I cited claims to be larger and is more recent. In any case, I do not think that “a battle of studies” is going to resolve our disagreements. So far, you still have not addressed my points about childless marriages and particularly, to move back closer to the subject of this discussion, concerning the law that is not about any marriages or adoption rights at all.