When the Blue say "I Do" They Actually Mean It

Via a website with a name that violates the posting rules (warning, site is highly offensive...click through at your own risk). And for the record, the author of that site is a lunatic...I just believe in citing my sources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As the culture wars rage on, one of the themes we hear again and again is that conservatives place more importance on family values than liberals do. That's why conservatives are more likely to want to ban gay marriage, in order to protect their families, or so they say. The fact that Massachusetts, the state the conservatives love to hate, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation has been making the rounds lately, but as divorcemag.com illustrates with this table, it's not just Massachusetts. Nine of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates are Blue states:

1. Massachusetts
2. Connecticut
3. New Jersey
4. Rhode Island
5. New York
6. Pennsylvania
7. Wisconsin
8. North Dakota
9. Maryland
10. Minnesota

But wait...there's more. Ten of the bottom 10 states are Red states.

1. Florida
2. New Mexico
3. Idaho
4. Alabama
5. Indiana
6. Wyoming
7. Tennessee
8. Oklahoma
9. Arkansas
10. Nevada

And more than just Red states, nine* at least 5 of the bottom 10 are Bible Belt States.

Aside from the quickie-divorce Mecca of Nevada, no region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt. Nearly half of all marriages break up, but the divorce rates in these southern states are roughly 50 percent above the national average.

These are the same people who claim that my marrying my fiance will threaten their marriages. Any scapegoat in a storm, eh?

*Surprised no one caught that...confused my sentences here.

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

Massachusetts 6.4 2.4 0.38
Connecticut 5.6 2.9 0.52
New Jersey 6.6 3.5 0.53
Rhode Island 8.6 3.5 0.41
New York 7.9 3.0 0.38
Pennsylvania 6.0 3.2 0.53
Wisconsin 6.5 3.2 0.49
North Dakota 6.6 2.7 0.41
Maryland 7.1 3.0 0.42
Minnesota 6.8 3.3 0.49

Florida 9.7 5.4 0.56
New Mexico 7.9 5.1 0.65
Idaho 11.4 5.6 0.49
Alabama 9.6 5.3 0.55
Indiana (no data)
Wyoming 10.3 6.1 0.59
Tennessee 13.9 5.2 0.37
Oklahoma 4.9 3.4 0.69
Arkansas 14.8 6.6 0.45
Nevada 75.0 6.8 0.09

Here's the data you should be looking at. First column is marriage rate, second is divorce rate, and third is my calculated divorce rate per marriage. Not as much of a story here as maybe it appeared, Edward.

[Edward]

Tell a story with your calcuations Slarti, if you would, they're not so easy to follow.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, Edward, the number of divorces in a given state isn't all that important, now is it? For instance, if California had 128,000 divorces in one year, while in the same year Wyoming had 3,100, what do the raw numbers mean in terms of divorce rate? Nothing at all.

You can rank states by any means you'd like, of course. If a state has a relatively low marriage rate, though, then having a low divorce rate isn't in itself all that relevant. On the other hand, a state like Arkansas has a relatively high marriage rate, so lots of people are getting married. A percentage of those marriages wind up in divorce, but it's a low enough percentage that it falls behind Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Raw ranking is the least relevant indicator. Ranking by divorce rate is a bit more telling. My calculation is perhaps another (not vouching for meaningful) ranking. And all of it's meaningless unless you can establish some connection between the way the majority votes and the environment for marriage, and perhaps account for environmental differences, such as location, weather, age distribution, etc.

So what I'm saying is that while my amateur analysis might be a wee bit better than yours, neither of them are really worth the pixels they're written with.

[Slartibartfast]

BTW, the point about the Bible Belt states is well taken. My first move to the Bible Belt (about 20 years ago) was a shock. Here's a place where some groups of people don't allow themselves to dance or play cards, and it's marbled through and through with strip joints and pawnshops. Neither of which I'd ever laid eyes on before, in the much less privately repressive midwest.

And nearly everyone I worked with was either divorced or in the process of getting one. The only explanation I could come up with is that some paradigms were crumbling, and with them came some of the relationships that were built on those paradigms.

[Edward]

Nice try Slarti. I thought you were shooting for something like that, but here's the problem with your, er, muddied waters.

The data provided on that table, whereby they determined the ranking, is the rate, not just the numbers, which as you note is "more telling."

For your additional comparison to have the value you assign it though, one has to accept that marrying with no intention of staying married has more value than not marrying at all.

[Slartibartfast]

The data provided on that table, whereby they determined the ranking, is the rate, not just the numbers, which as you note is "more telling."

Ack. Consider me publicly exposed as the fraud that I am.

For your additional comparison to have the value you assign it though, one has to accept that marrying with no intention of staying married has more value than not marrying at all.

Nah. It's got nothing to do with intentions. It's got to do with results. Consider a state where the marriage rate is, say, 100. If the divorce rate is 8, which would be high as an absolute, then you could still say that only 8 out of 100 marriages ended in divorce. Or something like that.

The demographic point is well illustrated by Nevada. I'd bet (heh) a double-sawbuck that most of Nevada's marriages are exported and raise the divorce rates in the state the couple actually lives in. Any takers?

[Walter Sobchak]

Actually, I think Slarti has a good mathematical point here, even if I agree with you in principle, Edward. He's doing a derivative: the number of divorces per marriage per population rather than just the number of divorces per population:

D/(M/P)

vs.

D/P

So what he's basically saying is, in a state with a higher marriage rate, there are more married couples and therefore more opportunity for divorce. Nevada is obviously the most striking example: yes, there are more divorces per 1,000 than in Connecticut or Massachussetts, but the rate per marriage is far lower.

Even so, Slarti, taking your analysis into account still argues against the notion so seemingly prevalent in the red states that blue-staters are "less moral" or, to address what Edward may have specifically had in mind, that the acceptance of gay people in mainstream society has any measurable negative effect on the maintenance of "family values".

[Slartibartfast]

I'm neither disputing nor affirming any theory of Edward's that the numbers mean anything whatever about morality, as a prop for the argument for gay marriage. Just noting that his rankings aren't necessarily as meaningful as they might be.

That, and the relevance of failure as an indication of morality is unconvincing, as far as I'm concerned.

[Walter Sobchak]

I should clarify, Slarti: the reason your analysis argues against the "moral depravity" of blue states is that your ratios still show higher rates in most of the red states, and in any case they don't show a higher aggregate rate in the blue states. I'm not saying you were arguing in favor of the "family values" position, I just wanted to amplify that general point because I think that's what Edward was trying to say.

[Walter Sobchak]

That, and the relevance of failure as an indication of morality is unconvincing, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, a lot of the arguments against gay marriage have involved the notion that it would represent an institutional threat to the family values embodied by traditional marriage. Even if divorce is not the only measure of "family values", it's one of the major components. So if mainstream acceptance of gays in the blue states has not generated a higher divorce rate per marriage, that would seem to invalidate the moralist argument, which, by the way, I would imagine is about as insulting to gay people as "secular elitism" is to religious people, if not moreso.

[Edward]

So what he's basically saying is, in a state with a higher marriage rate, there are more married couples and therefore more opportunity for divorce.

Thanks for the clarification Walter.

I actually expected that to be Slarti's response to my first question.

The problem with using that to suggest there's a numerical reason the divorce rate is lower in Mass though (i.e., perhaps arguing that their lack of family values leads fewer of them to the alter), is that it suggests the odds of getting a divorce are determined by numbers, not by values.

In other words, if the dedication to family values in Arkansas lead more people there to marry, why don't they lead the same people to remain married? OR, if the lack of dedication to family values in Massachusetts leads more people to remain single, why doesn't that same ambivalence lead to more divorces?

Isn't it more likely that the people in Massachusetts who get married do so because they're serious about their commitment, whereas those in Arkansas are more likely to feel pressured into someone they may not necessarily wish to live with until death do them part?

And doesn't that suggest the committment to family values in Massachusetts is not only stronger, but more mature?

[someguy]

would it be possible to make the denominator the total married population of the state? From census data or what have you? That seems like the most relevant indicator.

[Slartibartfast]

And doesn't that suggest the committment to family values in Massachusetts is not only stronger, but more mature?

I wouldn't buy that without a whole lot of other data, Edward. This goes back to what I'm saying: not that you have no point, but that you're attempting to draw some generalizations of human behavior from too little data.

For instance, both Massachusetts and Rhode Island have a large number of Catholics, and Catholics tend to discourage divorce. In other words, the low divorce rates in those states might be a by-product of a certain eccentric religiosity, rather than morality.

You could argue that Catholics are more moral than other religions; I'm not going there but I don't think that's going to take you in the direction you want.

[someguy]

the explanation I've seen says:
1) later average age of marriage
2) higher education
3) higher income--being really poor is a risk factor, though it matters less whether you're middle or upper class
4) higher catholic population

not necessarily in that order.

[Edward]

For instance, both Massachusetts and Rhode Island have a large number of Catholics, and Catholics tend to discourage divorce. In other words, the low divorce rates in those states might be a by-product of a certain eccentric religiosity, rather than morality.

Good point and fair enough.

you're attempting to draw some generalizations of human behavior from too little data.

Only in a larger attempt to expose a hypocrisy. In my attempt to digest and process all the statistical information, however (stupid math), I missed your comment that did so much better:

Here's a place where some groups of people don't allow themselves to dance or play cards, and it's marbled through and through with strip joints and pawnshops.

[Edward]

1) later average age of marriage
2) higher education
3) higher income--being really poor is a risk factor, though it matters less whether you're middle or upper class
4) higher catholic population

None of which disproves my suggestion that the committment to family values in Mass is more mature than that in Arkansas.

[Jadegold]

Somebody ask for more data?

Edward's table is actually drawn from a study done by the George Barna Research Group. Barna, a born again Christian, produced the table and analyzed the results and provided the following factors to explain the differences:

More couples in the South enter their first marriage at a younger age.

Average household incomes are lower in the South.

Southern states have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, "a denomination that does not recognize divorce." Barna's study showed that 21 percent of Catholics had been divorced, compared with 29 percent of Baptists.

Education. Massachusetts has about the highest rate of education in the country, with 85 percent completing high school. For Texas the rate is 76 percent. One third of Massachusetts residents have completed college, compared with 23 percent of Texans, and the other Northeast states are right behind Massachusetts.

Additionally, Barna broke down divorce rates among faiths. He found Catholics to have among the lowest divorce rates (21%) along with Lutherans. But, surprisingly the highest divorce rates were for Baptists (29%) and conservative Protestants (25%)

[Don Quijote]

The southern States are also the least healthy.

America's Health: State Health Rankings - 2004 Edition
Broadly speaking, every social indicator is worse (more poverty, less eduction, etc..) in the south than in the North-East.

I am left wondering how it is that the country keeps elcting these losers.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Wouldn't higher rates of marriage likely produce higher rates of divorce as a normal matter?

Suppose a higher percentage of couples get married in state A than in state B. The "excess" marriages in A are likely to be weaker than the average - they are marginally committed couples whose counterparts in B don't get married. Hence they will have higher divorce rate. It's like comparing average test scores across states when in one state only the really bright kids take the test and in the other everyone does. The fact that the first state has a higher average score tells us nothing.

[Slartibartfast]

When doing analysis of this sort, it's useful to look at trends rather than the data that just support your point. Not saying anyone's doing that, but when data pops up that tend to diminish your point, you've got to be able to address them.

Item: Colorado has nearly 87% high school graduates and 32.7% bachelor's degree and above, which is a fairly close fit to Massachusetts in those categories. Yet it has a fairly substantial divorce rate of 5.5 per thousand (1990, the last year I could find data for Colorado).

[Edward]

Speaking of trends though, Slarti, Colorado is trending toward Blue, so I suspect you'll find the divorce rate is lower now too...(if there's any validity to the general assumption here, that is).

[Slartibartfast]

Circular, Edward.

[someguy]

yeah, I agree.

Where does Colorado's average age at marriage fit in? I've read that that's the strongest correlation.

there are also just going to be outliers--we're talking about 50 states here.

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, I think Colorado's demographic is changing. What that change means, if anything, I don't know. But if Colorado's seeing an influx of people from California, for instance, as Oregon and Washington did in the '90s, that could tip the scales toward the blue.

[Don Quijote]

Via a website with a name that violates the posting rules (warning, site is highly offensive...click through at your own risk). And for the record, the author of that site is a lunatic...I just believe in citing my sources.

Nice Rant

That's not lunacy, that's freaking self rightous anger.

And it's about time.

particularly after Sh*t like this:

In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

[Walter Sobchak]

The problem with using that to suggest there's a numerical reason the divorce rate is lower in Mass though (i.e., perhaps arguing that their lack of family values leads fewer of them to the alter), is that it suggests the odds of getting a divorce are determined by numbers, not by values.

Well, I think we're pretty much arguing for the same conclusion (that the blue states are no "less moral" than the red states) in a different way, but you're right - I didn't really think about the assumptions implicit in my argument. Even so, I think Slarti's method has some merit, because I don't agree with the statement that it "suggests the odds of getting a divorce are determined by numbers, not by values"; it mostly just refines the analysis by comparing apples to apples instead of to oranges.

[Slartibartfast]

that's freaking self rightous anger

Not to be confused with righteous anger.

[Don Quijote]

but it is rightous!!!

[Edward]

I think Slarti's method has some merit

Absolutely. It's another way to look at it. I just don't believe you can conclude from it that Red states are stronger on family values from it.

[Slartibartfast]

First, it's best not to celebrate one's intellectual superiority over the South while repeatedly demonstrating an inability to spell or punctuate properly. It's a credibility issue. Second, there is a distinction between "righteous" and "self-righteous" that might bear looking into.

[John Thullen]

I haven't any numbers, but some large percentage of folks in Colorado are newly arrived from other places (last 20 years). Also, they are for the most part in the marriagable or divorcable age group.

I understand Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where I'm from originally, is one of the oldest (demographically) cities in America. The young leave, though I suspect that is changing. I would not be surprised if they had a low divorce rate, though, given generational differences.

By the way, Governor Bill Owens, impresario of the family values coalition in Colorado, is separated from his wife and there all are kinds of juicy rumors about why. He's Catholic. From Texas. He trots about in the pro-marriage garb to get what he really wants, which is to not pay taxes. But he may be losing that argument, too.

[someguy]

I think that site is somewhat tongue in cheek. Take these two paragraphs:

"Who do you think those f***ing stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for f***ing blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their f***ing Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this s***, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" di**heads. F*** off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being f***ing arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the f***ing cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so f***ing arrogant if I wasn't paying for your f***ing bridges, b**ch."

Not that the sentiment isn't real--but I think it is being deliberately exaggerated for comic effect. What a lot of us kind of felt like last Wednesday and every time we heard Bush going on about "Massachusets liberals", but knew wasn't totally fair and would never dream of actually saying out loud.

[someguy]

Further evidence they're joking:

"And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a f***ing swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a s***hole," we said, but you had to have your f***ing orange juice."

No offense, Slarti. Some of my best friends are Floridians...

[Slartibartfast]

Half of my family being Massachusetts liberals (dunno about the liberal part, but they all seemed to stay in Mass), I wouldn't go that way either.

[someguy]

(and I'm drinking orange juice right now)

[Slartibartfast]

No offense, Slarti.

None taken. It's not as if I took a dime of Federal aid, yanno, or even got a dime of insurance money. Just turned in the home equity loan application yesterday, as a matter of fact.

And, it's got to be said, those hurricanes may well be responsible for a great deal of the margin of voctory in Florida. Nothing creates gratitude like the government bailing you out of a disaster, or so I'd imagine.

[Don Quijote]

First, it's best not to celebrate one's intellectual superiority over the South while repeatedly demonstrating an inability to spell or punctuate properly.

I don't celebrate my intellectual superiority or that of the North-East, I just acknowledge it. It's not my fault that the poorest, least healthy, most racist and least educated states are all in the South.

As for my spelling, it's not that I can't spell, it's that I can't type despite having worked with computers for twenty years.

[someguy]

"I don't celebrate my intellectual superiority or that of the North-East, I just acknowledge it. It's not my fault that the poorest, least healthy, most racist and least educated states are all in the South."

Dude, cut it out, you sound like Rush Limbaugh.

More often than not, the differences within a group--red states, blue states, men, women, blacks, whites, whatever--are greater than the differences between two groups.

[someguy]

(and of course you can come up with exceptions--the differences between amnesty international members and ku kux klan members, say. Maybe also Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans. But when you're talking about groups as big and as arbitrary as the north and the south, or red states and blue states, the rule holds.)

[Don Quijote]

someguy,

The difference between the North & the South are simple & straight forward, the South is unwilling/unable to raise the funds needed to create the institutions needed to promote the common good (the N****** might get something out of it). They are in the process of attempting to drag the rest of the country to their level.

[blogbudsman]

I'm guessing that in spite of the number matrix, there is no relationship regarding family values, liberals, conservatives, states regardless of there latitude and longitude. Marriage is hard. Getting married when most of us get married is hard. I'm not sure I see the relationship of family values and divorce. Like I said, it's hard. But that's not where Edward wants to lead us. Marriage is an element of family values. Marriage between a man and a woman is marriage. Even though the cohabitation between two men or two women can be compared to a marriage, it is not one. It doesn't matter what state you live in, it doesn't matter where you place yourself along the political spectrum. It takes a man and a women to parent a child and that's what a family is. Any other combinations are just facsimiles. If groupings of people can successfully lobby for government entitlements, then so be it. But it does not a marriage make. I imagine Edward and whoever he choses to spend intimate time with are wonderful human beings, trying their best to cope with life. It just that marriage isn't one of their options if they are the same sex.

[wilfred]

i can only speak from experience but i have lived significant amounts of time (decades) in 3 places, Texas, California and New York. The last two are similar but nothing compared to Texas regarding divorce, where it seems like a sport. It's is everywhere, much more than the other two. And I saw on an ABC news program recently that Oklahoma has the highest divorce rate and has climbed so high they call first marriages there 'starter marriages'.

[Jadegold]

It takes a man and a women to parent a child and that's what a family is. Any other combinations are just facsimiles.

This illustrates sheer arrogance and bigotry.

[blogbudsman]

"This illustrates sheer arrogance and bigotry."

Sorry you feel that way. Hope you can overcome your anger some day.

[Edward]

It just that marriage isn't one of their options if they are the same sex.

Says who?

[Slartibartfast]

They are in the process of attempting to drag the rest of the country to their level.

Yep, that very thing is up for vote in the state legislature this week.

[Gromit]

blogbudsman: It takes a man and a women to parent a child and that's what a family is. Any other combinations are just facsimiles.

You are ignoring the fact that the nuclear family as a norm is a very recent development in human history. A few thousand years ago, a typical family was something radically different, involving shared parenting among aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins, in addition to mothers and fathers (and this is still the case for a lot of folks today). You are also disparaging single parents everywhere by saying that they are not raising real families, but rather "facsimiles". You need more than unsupported proclamations to justify such a slur.

[Don Quijote]

No, that was a week ago, when the single worst President in my lifetime was finally elected by 51% of the voting public.

He will now attempt to enact policies that will turn the entire country into a larger version of Mississippi.

[John Thullen]

By the way, Edward, I don't think the guy is a lunatic.
I don't quite agree with someguy that this is strictly satire.

Instead, I think it is rhetoric in line with, say, Richard Nixon's "madman" theory of diplomatic talk, in case the Soviets were listening.

He's saying, look, tough guys, we can talk like you and walk like you and throw a chair against the wall, too, if that's how you want it. Is that how you want it?

Then they decide whether they want or not. If they don't, great! If they do want it, which I believe some of them do, where you gonna sit after I break all the chairs?

[hilzoy]

You know, I love the fact that an argument about family values turned into an argument about statistics. (I'm completely serious.)

And blogbuds: pity about all those infertile heterosexual couples who turn out not to have a marriage, according to you.

[Slartibartfast]

And blogbuds: pity about all those infertile heterosexual couples who turn out not to have a marriage, according to you.

That would be me, I guess. Except, we adopted.

[Urinated State of America (aka Tom)]

"Southern states have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, "a denomination that does not recognize divorce." Barna's study showed that 21 percent of Catholics had been divorced, compared with 29 percent of Baptists."

Henry VIII excepted*, it's actually easier to get an annullment, especially in the US Catholic Church, than you might think. My sister got one, even after four years of marriage. Just it's a bit long and expensive, as the church investigators will take depositions from everyone and their dog before ruling.

" It takes a man and a women to parent a child and that's what a family is. Any other combinations are just facsimiles."

Lessee. A woman's fertility by 35 is half that in her twenties. Does that mean that a woman marrying when she's 35+ has a marriage that is half as valid than if she'd married in her twenties? And what about when she's 45+, when there is fuck-all chance of conceiving, even with IVF? Is that worth 5% of a woman in her thirties?

If parenting's your yardstick, you gotta be consistent.

*In that case, Henry's shacking up with Anne Boelyn before the Papacy had ruled on the case probably frosted the Papal nuts somewhat.

[Slartibartfast]

Quote from Señor Posting Rules:

No profanity. For the record, 'hell', 'damn' and 'pissed' are not considered 'profanity' for the purposes of this rule; also for the record, the more offensive racial slurs and epithets will be deemed to 'profanity' for the purposes of this rule

Do try and make an effort to comply.

[someguy]

Good for you, slart.

The argument over whether it's as good to have two parents of the same sex as two parents of the opposite sex reminds me of an argument over adoption--whether it's all right to place black or hispanic children with white families.

In both cases--sure, maybe it's IDEAL for a child to have a role model of both sexes. Maybe it's IDEAL for a black child to have parents who understand the struggles of growing up black in America. (I'm more convinced of the latter, myself.) But we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world were there are children trapped in a terrible foster care system, where half of straight marriages end in divorce, and plenty of children are born out of wedlock or to teenagers who are not really ready to become parents. I am completely and utterly certain that it matters much, much, more--so much more it is hard to expres--for children to have two parents that love them, then it matters what the sex or the race of the parent is. (Or one parent, in a pinch, with as many other caring adults as possible around.)

[blogbudsman]

Go ahead and pick it apart hilzoy, 'tis your talent. And maybe I didn't catch every argument in trying to explain why Edward will continue to swim upstream against the strong current of public opinion. I also didn't include that my wife's Huntington's Disease destroyed her hopes for the family she invisioned. But it's not blue and red, it's not northeast and southwest, and waving the divorce card in front of the argument won't cure us homophobes. I just erased half of what came out of my head (quiet the cheers). I end now, below the melodramtice line, with feelings properly repressed. Go on, discourse to the choir.

[blogbudsman]

Well, it was suppose to read 'melodramatic'.

[someguy]

blogbudsman, the post above yours was an attempt to answer you. a much more polite and respectful attempt than my first draft, I might add.

So what do you think of it? are you actually suggesting that gay adoptions be banned? how can you do that in good conscience, the foster care system being what it is (and the state of third world orphanages being what it is)? if you are not suggesting that, wouldn't those children be better off if they had a legal relationship to both parents and their parents were married?

[Slartibartfast]

For the record, I agree completely with someguy's 3:03 PM comment.

[wilfred]

Bob and Liddy Dole don't have children by choice. Does that not make theirs a marriage or them a family?

[radish]

Edward's point seems to work to the extent that the data support a null hypothesis rather than the one being implied by opponents of gay marriage -- there's no particular correlation shown between respect for the institution of marriage and "redness" at the state level. But Slart's right that that's as far as the data in question can take you. There's no way to read this as more respect for marriage in blue states.

If I didn't have a day job and a 2pm deliverable, I'd go out and try to chase down whether there's any data suggesting a significant correlation between opposition to gay marriage and tendancy to divorce. I suspect that there is, but I'm just speculating.

Anecdotally though, I would mention that in the comments presented here, we see elevated divorce rates in four (admittedly arbitrary) demographic clusters which we can reasonably label as "strongly opposed to gay marriage": Baptists, conservative Protestants, and residents of Texas and Oklahoma. Science it ain't, but then I don't see any grant money on the line here...

[Edward]

with feelings properly repressed

Please do not repress your feelings blogbudsman. Your contributions to this particular discussion are very valuable to me. Seriously. I learn from them. If nothing else they help me sharpen my argument, but more than that, as you note, they help me avoid spouting off about things that shut the other side down.

Whether I like it or not, the only chance I have of living to one day marry my soul mate, is to convince the majority of Americans who feel I shouldn't be able to that their fears are unfounded and their defintion a "marriage" need not be impacted by my definition being different. I promise not to care one way or the other if someone else marries a person of the opposite sex. I'll still wish them well, dance at their wedding, and buy them the biggest present I can.

They can keep the details of the honeymoon to themselves...but otherwise, I'll be happy for them.

[Edward]

There's no way to read this as more respect for marriage in blue states.

Not clear on why.

[blogbudsman]

Sorry someguy, I hadn't read your post prior. You're right about the foster care system. It needs to be dealt with on it's own merits, as well as the teenage pregnancy and divorce issues. First of all everyone, I was not raised in a 'religious' household. I'm agnostic at best. But religion has touched my life, and there are disciplines within most religions that are aimed at how we live our lives. As religion is removed from various aspects of our society, nothing seems to have filled the void. Yes, we must accept less than ideal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Can a gay couple raise a child? Sure! Can two women raise a child generally better than two men. Whoa Nellie! Are some gay couples more stable than some mixed couples? No doubt. Does a child raised in a homosexual relationship escape unscathed? I doubt it. I'm leaving work now. I'll check back in later from home. I'm not a wise man, but I'm not uneducated. I've lived life, and I've listened to many. Some thoughts need to be repressed, human nature can be a bit vile you know. I'll hang in there as long as I don't get kicked off the island. Thanks for your comments, Edward. If I can contribute in any way to help clear your path (or maybe it's my path that's blocked), I'd be proud.

[Edward]

I hope this isn't seen as taking a break from my promise to not be partisan during my self-imposed honeymoon period for President Bush, but I thought this was too funny not to share.

[Gromit]

blogbudsman: Does a child raised in a homosexual relationship escape unscathed? I doubt it.

"Escape" from what? "Unscathed" by what?

[kenB]

Unscathed" by what?

Unscathed by the schoolyard taunts, the murmurings and social disapproval, perhaps? It's ironic that the only ill effects that could reasonably be expected for children of a homosexual couple stem from the prejudice of the very people who scream about how horrible such an arrangement would be for the children.

[Edward]

It's ironic that the only ill effects that could reasonably be expected for children of a homosexual couple stem from the prejudice of the very people who scream about how horrible such an arrangement would be for the children.

Nicely put.

[Phil]

And aside from what kenB brings up, I strongly -- very, very strongly -- suspect that more gay children have suffered physical, mental and psychological wounds at the hands of their straight parents than is true of the reverse situation. I have heard literally hundreds of stories of gay young men and women being thrown out of their parents' homes and told never to return, to live on the street, with no means of support, and to suffer all manner of heartbreak and degradation. I have never, not once, heard of gay parents throwing a straight child -- or any other kind of child -- out on the street. Ever.

[blogbudsman]

You know I appreciate kenB's cleverness, and there's truth to what he's saying. But I was actually thinking along different lines. Any of you folks ever been parents to a 14 year old? Heck, I thought I'd catch more flack about the men couples vs women couples. This is heading way above my ability to argue. How about only child kids, and middle kids. Tall kids, little kids. Beautiful kids, homely kids. Don't they have enough to sort through without having to deal with the hope they’ve been placed with the perfect gay couple. How about the less than perfect gay couple? Help, I'm lost in the stereotype jungle. I've fallen and I can't get up. Crucify me, crucify me. Of course I see the world through eyes that see what I think is normal. If I can't accept homosexuality is completely normal, then Edward, I'm tapped out. But that's what you’re up against. A lot of compassionate people, who are kind and thoughtful, and don't wish an ounce of pain on anyone, who behind their smile, beyond their averted glance, their polite acknowledgement, think your differences are a genetic anomaly. And I deserve whatever comebacks you clever blog warriors can muster. I suppose when I meet my maker, I'll learn the truth. But if it's only dust to dust, I'm doomed to die with thoughts.

[Jadegold]

Don't they have enough to sort through without having to deal with the hope they’ve been placed with the perfect gay couple. How about the less than perfect gay couple?

Families aren't perfect--gay or straight.

Part of the family relationship is confronting these imperfections and issues and working through them.

[blogbudsman]

You're right Jadegold, no doubt about it. And the whole purpose of this discourse, at least my participation is to share with Edward my perspective of what he's up against. Why eleven states, including my old stomping grounds, Oregon, voted overwhelmingly to establish man and woman marriage laws. The tide is not ebbing toward any acceptance of fiddling with the vow of marriage between husband and wife. I do, however, previous arguments not withstanding, see more of an attempt to understand the plight of gay couples and a lot of lattitude on some arrangement other than marriage. Is it all or nothing in the gay community?

[theEnvoy]

Going way back to the Barna study, jadegold forgot one group, the atheist/agnostic group, which is actually has the lowest divorce rate, lower than the catholics.

This is one of the things that drives me nuts about this 'family values' arguement. The same people who argue that gays shouldn't get married would no doubt cast the non religious in the same boat.

[John Thullen]

"Is it all or nothing in the gay community?"

Well, considering that the other side started with a non-negotiable position of heterosexual marriage=all vrs gay=nothing, one can see why Edward might begin his negotiation with the polar opposite, if, in fact, he is.
(not putting words in Edward's mouth).

And it is obvious to me, Blog(bud)sman, that you have stated your position clearly and honestly, but are open to understanding Edward's position and perhaps even nudging the status quo in that direction at least part of the way. Good for you.

Discussions on these issues take place on two levels at Obsidian Wings, I find. The first discussion is where everyone is fairly logical and states their position in an open, perhaps flexible way. But there is always a subtext from the real world, which is the second level of discussion. Taking this issue as a example,Edward just got beat up politically in the real world, so he's ticked and hurt, and scandalized at the manner of the debate, as am I.

We had (and still do) a President and a Vice President who hinted in fairly nice but inconclusive rhetoric that there might be compromise on this issue somewhere down the line, and then who used the full demagogic force of their hardest line supporters to scare the crap out of people and shut the debate down completely through ballot issues, which Bush and Cheney used to gain votes for themselves and their larger agenda as well.

It was nasty.

I thank you for reaching out on this issue. But remember the two levels.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I don't know about divorce rates as indicators of morality, but here's something that should disturb all those "moral values" red-staters:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/11/alabama-amendment-2.html

[radish]

Not clear on why.

I guess I don't think it's realistic to attach a notion like "respect for the intitution of marriage" (RFTIOM) to a variable that's independent of the rates at which people within a cluster get married in the first place. (mind-reading penalty might be in order: I was just sort of assuming that that's where you were going with the post) It's like tabulating death rates without adjusting for birth rates. Failing to adjust for marriage rates makes the results tangential to RFTIOM.

Even without seeing Slart's numbers, my inner science nazi immediately thinks "well maybe there are fewer marriages in blue states as well," which could just as easily be construed as a lack of RFTIOM and undermines the "blue states have more RFTIOM" argument right outta the gate. Maybe bluestaters get divorced less because they have different age distributions or because they live near oceans. Maybe blue states, as a result of their net federal tax outflow, are forced to adjust their revenue stream by making divorce proceedings more expensive, thereby discouraging it ;-)

So at the end of the day, if I were forced to choose between Slart's D/(P/M) "empirical metric" for RFTIOM and yours, I'd have to pick Slarts. And Slart's shows that the geographic pattern is unclear. That said, I still think the divorce rate in a pure "strong opposition to gay marriage" grouping would be quite the eye-opener, even including the low-divorce-rate moonies.

[Gromit]

Wouldn't respect for the institution encompass prudence in entering into it in the first place? I'm not about to argue that the data supports the conclusion that red-staters somehow respect marriage less; it only really supports the conclusion that the Christian Coalition is talking out of its ass when it claims to know what is good for marriage and the family.

That said, I don't think it is fair to imply an equivalence between being divorced and not getting married in the first place. The consequences for those involved are dramatically different. In the end, aren't more broken marriages per capita still more broken marriages per capita, however you massage the numbers?

And even if you accept Slartibartfast's metric and use his data, MA still comes in 7th lowest for 2001 by my count (though there is no data for a handful of states). Vermont, where Civil Unions are the law, comes in 11th lowest. Pretty good for the Sodom and Gomorra of the Northeast, eh?

And which state has the fewest divorces per marriage by far for 2001? Nevada, home of casino gambling, legalized prostitution, and quickie divorces. Though I can't prove it, I think the reason is obvious: its divorces are far outstripped by a glut of impulsive, but largely doomed, out-of-state weddings. Make of this what you will.

[kenB]

I appreciate kenB's cleverness

Thanks, bud! I so often feel unappreciated.

Re the original post, I don't see any value in this state-by-state comparison -- who's to say that the red-staters who are voting for "moral values" are the same ones who are getting divorces? I'd be more interested in seeing a survey of divorce rates among self-described social conservatives.

[Slartibartfast]

A) I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if blue states correlate to fewer divorces per marriage than red states.

B) As I said upthread, it's likely that Nevada is a major exporter of divorces, although that data is not as easy to get to.

C) Even if, as blogbudsman postulates, there is a potential for more problems amongst the adoptee's peers in the case of homosexual adoptive parents, I think those problems would probably be dwarfed by the benefits of actually having parents.

[Gromit]

A) I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if blue states correlate to fewer divorces per marriage than red states.

The distribution looks pretty much random, actually, to my non-statistician's eye. Massachusetts just does particularly well most years, with a curious spike in 2000 bringing it up to just below the median.

[radish]

Er, what y'all said, actually. I'm just trying to make the point that while the divorcemag numbers make it possible to paint a pretty picture, they make it hard to rebut alternative explanations...

Gromit sez "Wouldn't respect for the institution encompass prudence in entering into it in the first place?" Well yeah, sure, but maybe lack of respect would encompass a failure to enter into marriage at all. And then there's my federal taxation shortfall hypo -- cute, but presumably dead wrong. The problem is that there's no way to even address either of those with the divorcemag data.

So Edward's numbers are fine for propaganda purposes but make it too easy to come up with alternative hypotheses. Slart's numbers are bad for propaganda purposes because there's no pattern leaping out and biting you, but they're more useful (though still vague) because there are fewer possible hypotheses that can explain them. And I agree with Gromit that the really interesting thing would be to look at divorce rates (and abuse and other obvious marital dysfunction) in the clusters that self-identify as "family values" oriented. I'm just too lazy, er, busy that is, to do anything about that right now.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, exactly, radish. I was going to say something like that, only I couldn't get the phrasing right. So, forewarning you all that this is probably not exactly what I mean:

In those states that have high divorce rates, who's getting the divorces? Democrats of Republicans? Religious zealots or atheists? Immigrants or those born in the U.S.? People who stuck at home, or transplants from other states?

Kinda like that. Anyway, I think the horse is dead now. Maybe spurs...

[dutchmarbel]

FWIW: People forget to take account of the fact that not all gays want to marry. Our national statistic bureau's latest estimates are that less than 10% of the same-sex couples in our country want to get married.

I assume that like with heterosexual couples only the ones for whom marriage is a specific kind of commitment want to get marries. At least that is what I see in my environment: lots of couples who live together, but they only want to get married if they start raising a family or if they want to pledge themselves to one another in the deepest possible way. For me, marriage is about love and commitment.

[Dan Goodman]

Slartibartfast: "Here's a place where some groups of people don't allow themselves to dance or play cards, and it's marbled through and through with strip joints and pawnshops. Neither of which I'd ever laid eyes on before, in the much less privately repressive midwest."

Then I guess you've never been in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, or Detroit. Or in areas where the Wisconsin Synod (Lutheran) or the stricter offshoots of the Reformed Church are strong.

[Nat]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The rate of marriage seems to be the number of marriages per year per 1000. I think. So, if a state population's marriages were extremely stable it would have a very low rate of marriage because it would track with the population growth. In fact, blue states are losing ground in population compared to red. A state with a very high rate of marriage would probably have a juiced marriage figure since the pool of marriageables would be constantly re-filled with divorcees. Or... they have a rapidly growing population, or both.

Tell me the average number of divorces per adult male and female state resident and this whole mess would be clearer.

And the Nevada figure is just a silly outlier in this discussion.

[Slartibartfast]

Or in areas where the Wisconsin Synod (Lutheran) or the stricter offshoots of the Reformed Church are strong.

Well, Dan, I happen to be Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, and I haven't noticed many of the sort of fringe benefits you seem to be suggesting. Maybe I'm unusually sheltered.

I've been to Chicago (as an adult only) and I've been around Minneapolis a bit, and the bits I've seen of either aren't a patch on Dallas. Probably, though, every city has its strip, and I just happened to see Dallas'. JFTR, my older brother's bachelor party was held in Chicago, and we were utterly unsuccessful in locating any sort of depravity at all.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, and regarding the copulate-the-south site, some advice.

[Jadegold]

Perhaps red states don't fully understand the meaning of marriage vows or fully appreciate the legal and moral significance of marriage.

That's understandable.

Especially since the country's best colleges and universities tend to be located in blue states.