The state of marriage in Massachusetts
Has the ability of gays and lesbians to wed in Massachusetts destroyed the institution of marriage in that state? Bruce Wilson says, to the contrary ...... Divorce rates in the US have been declining steadily since the the early 1980's. Massachusetts has shared in the trend and traditionally has had a divorce rate considerably lower than the national average. In fact. for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union.A tip of the hat to Street Prophets.In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the US national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000. Indeed, it was lower than the national average rate for 1950 (2.6 per 1,000) and even approached the national rate of 1940 (2 per 1,000).
In 2003, total divorces in Massachusetts declined 2.1% relative to 2002. But in the first two years of legal same sex marriage in the Bay State, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline and will very likely hold on to its title as the US state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The field is hotly contested -- divorce rates have fallen dramatically in the last few decades.
The institution of marriage in Massachusetts, as measured by the rate of divorce, has not been healthier in at least half a century regardless of dire predictions of Christian Right leaders and Catholic Bishops. But the states that have taken aggressive action against same sex marriage, have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts. ...
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 10:58 AM
4 Comments:
A low divorce rate doesn't tell us much if it's coupled with low rates of marriage.
From Charles Mahtesian writing in Fed Exec,
When the Census Bureau released in October its first-ever state-by-state analysis of the links between marriage, fertility and other socioeconomic characteristics, it was hard not to notice the familiar red- and blue-state divisions. The top 11 states with most births per 1,000 women were carried by Republican President George W. Bush in 2004. Of the bottom 11 states, eight were won by Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
In the Northeast, the Democratic Party's stronghold, men and women marry later, on average, than in any other region, and the Northeastern states feature some of the highest levels of unmarried-couple households in the nation. Marriage rate data reveal similarly stark distinctions: Red states dominate the top of the chart while blue states are clustered at the low end.
Worse, this is followed with low fertility rates too.
The troubling thing about the Mass law though was what it did to Catholic Charities adoption program. If this becomes widespread, and Religous face this kind of State Intervention, I think it would be tragic:
From the Weekly Standard,
By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that's pretty close to the world in which they live now.
I don't see what the divorce rate has to do with rates of marriage. If two states have a million marriages, no matter what the rate of marriage is, and 20% of them end in divorce in one state vs 50% in the other state, the implication to me is that the first state has marriages that are a lot healthier.
The Mass law did *nothing* to the Catholic Charities adoption program. They made a choice on their own. They didn't have to make that choice.
A lower divorce rate has to be viewed in context of the number of people who chose to marry.
If everyone choses not to marry, then the divorce rate goes to zero. (That's the extreme case but it illustrates the math).
As for Catholic Charites choice, it seems to be it was grant adoptions to same-sex couples in viloation of thier doctrine, or get out of the adoption business.
I think that they had to confront that choice a sad and unessary thing.
We have a same-sex marriage referendum in Illinois and I may vote against same-sex marriage if that's the implication.
I favor an option for same-sex marriage (not civil unions which seem a cop out to me), but I'd had to impose it if it meant faith groups had to abandon doctrine regardless of how I felt about it...
yes, number of marriages per capita is obviously important. If few people are choosing to get married than the institution of marriage is not faring very well, is it?
The is generally true even if the divorce rate for those few marriages is lower.
Post a Comment
<< Home