Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, MA Still Has Lowest Divorce Rate in US

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:20 PM
Original message
After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, MA Still Has Lowest Divorce Rate in US
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 09:23 PM by Shallah Kali
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/8/23/111457/280/F...

Actually, the "experiment" has been running in Massachusetts for fully 1/2 decade now and over three years ago I wrote a story here at Talk To Action summing up the apparent impact { http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/13/14120/4811 } of the then-2 year "experiment". Now, we have 5 years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts { http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/mardiv.htm }, still retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state.


Back in summer 2006, after more than a year of poring over accumulating data I reported what was, to my mind, a foregone conclusion; after two years of legal gay marriage, the Bay State still boasted the lowest divorce rate of any state in the nation. That was notable in light of the absurdly histrionic claims made by leaders on the Christian right that legal gay marriage in Massachusetts would be an "apocalypse" that would lead to the destruction of Western Civilization or even the world. Below is a list of some of the more outrageous of such claims.

Now Steve Chapman has taken the next step. As he writes in his Chicago Tribune column,

I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators -- marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.

You would think they would react like Albert Pujols when presented with a hanging curveball. Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states.


One of the "conservative thinkers" who Chapman tried to solicit a prediction from, Maggie Gallagher, was active in the push to pass California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California. So, it's especially notable that she was unwilling to supply Mr. Chapman with any specifics on what social ills gay marriage is supposed to cause.

In short, it appears the word is getting out that gay marriage has little impact other then 1) allowing gay couples to marry and 2) providing marriage fees for clerics who conduct such marriage ceremonies. The real question is this - how long will it take for the truth to diffuse, out into wider society ? Or will it ever ?



Sometimes I think the national gov should just switch all marriages to civil unions and leave the religious stuff to a to those who want it provided separately by their clergy of choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. They predicted that MA would collapse, and instead everyone just went on as they always did.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 09:24 PM by Forkboy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Gardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Same here in Iowa
The firestorm seems to have subsided, now it's business as usual. It's rarely in the news anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. The fundie nutbags sure did seem convinced that the Lord's
hot vengeance would flow like fiery lava from the heavens onto the good folk of the Commonwealth.

But it looks like half a decade later things are runnin' purty smooth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. wasn't it shortly after gay marriage was allowed that the Red Sox won the world series?
If so isn't that a sign of some deity smiling down on Massachusetts by breaking the curse? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. LOL! There it is.
Play ball!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Yeah, and they finally perfected the locustburgers and got just the right amount of garlic...
to go with the frogs' legs.

Next step: through the wonders of genetic engineering,
get the Charles River to run red with O-negative blood
instead of AB-positive; more useful that way!

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm guessing that if gay marriage is ever legalized
homosexual couples will have a rate of divorce comparable to heterosexual couples.

But even if it were astronomically higher, that wouldn't really matter. They should be free to make their own choices (and mistakes) in this area, same as everyone else.

"Sometimes I think the national gov should just switch all marriages to civil unions and leave the religious stuff to a to those who want it provided separately by their clergy of choice."

My thoughts exactly. Civil unions are a legal contract; the government has plenty of experience enforcing contracts. Marriages are in many ways a religious union, that the government should stay out of entirely (gay, straight, plural, whatever), and leave to your religious leader of choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
targetpractice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. I like Andrew Sullivan's take on this...
He wrote that items on Gallagher's grievance list amount to this: "As support for gay marriage grows, the public institutions and sentiments that oppose gay marriage will become increasingly marginalized."

Hah!

Read more at The Horrible Things That Gay Marriage Will Do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. We ought to start citing this in other national/state fights for marriage equality
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 10:12 PM by ShadowLiberal
I'd love to see what a religious righter in the south would say if they tried this same argument there and someone countered that the divorce rate remained unchanged in Massachusetts and other states with gay marriage after gay marriage was legalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. But I was told that allowing gay people to marry would DESTROY
the sanctity of marriage!

I have been hoodwinked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alanbstardmp Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, MA Still Has Lowest Divorce Rate in US
there is something wrong about gay marriage. marriage was designed to assist in bringing up children

and that is what they are after next i think
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Please, show me where that's written.
And if you say "THE BIBLE HURRRRRR" I will fucking slap you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. It must suck to be you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. You have a website advertising a troll space in your profile.
If you are trying to be a troll you are doing it all wrong. Most of them at least try to "blend in" for a month or two and then really go to town. Sad. No craftsmanship anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. So, couples who can't have or don't want children must divorce or can't marry?
How about getting out of your mother's basement into the real world for a while?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
11. For some reason people don't get it, civil marriage is just that, civil
and I agree with you

The clergy was a good "solution" back in the day when the County Judge took three months to make the rounds. Today... it is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
14. Well, obviously we have a bunch of GLBT SLACKERS in MA
who aren't trying to destroy mawidge hard enough. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
16. And who's the new #1? Why Oklahoma!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC