posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 11:23am on 01/11/2004
orichalcum at 11:23am on 01/11/2004I know, realistically, that tomorrow many, many people are going to vote for, and probably pass, irrational homophobic amendments aimed at "defending" their marriages from the likes of "Massachusetts liberals." As this editorial points ou,
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country. Vermont is one of the lowest. The states with the highest divorce rates? Nevada, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma.
The religious group with the highest divorce rates? Jews and Conservative Protestants. Atheists and agnostics get divorced much less frequently.
So don't tell us that being a Massachusetts liberal, or, for that matter, a New York liberal, makes you value the sanctity of marriage less. The main study I'm looking at suggests that the reason for the Northeast's much lower divorce rate is its emphasis on education, which leads to later marriages, which leads to more people getting married for the right reasons. (I'd be pretty hypocritical if I said that early marriages were always a bad idea, but they do run a higher risk, statistically, because younger people tend generally to have less good long-term judgment skills. Obviously, I know lots of great exceptions to this rule.)
And if you live in a state where one of these amendments is on the ballot, think long and hard about what you're legislating, and who you're building a wall against, and whether that wall is really what's needed to keep your family life safe.
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country. Vermont is one of the lowest. The states with the highest divorce rates? Nevada, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma.
The religious group with the highest divorce rates? Jews and Conservative Protestants. Atheists and agnostics get divorced much less frequently.
So don't tell us that being a Massachusetts liberal, or, for that matter, a New York liberal, makes you value the sanctity of marriage less. The main study I'm looking at suggests that the reason for the Northeast's much lower divorce rate is its emphasis on education, which leads to later marriages, which leads to more people getting married for the right reasons. (I'd be pretty hypocritical if I said that early marriages were always a bad idea, but they do run a higher risk, statistically, because younger people tend generally to have less good long-term judgment skills. Obviously, I know lots of great exceptions to this rule.)
And if you live in a state where one of these amendments is on the ballot, think long and hard about what you're legislating, and who you're building a wall against, and whether that wall is really what's needed to keep your family life safe.
awake
(no subject)
The claim that allowing civil unions or legallizing gay marriage somehow hurts the institution of marriage are best met by empirical proof to the contrary. Vermont legalized civil unions and the world failed to end. Upon this ground did Massachusetts legalize marriage equality, and if in about 10 years, as I expect will occur, the marriage rates in MA remain unaffected (as they do in Vermont), those who claim that this somehow hurts marrigae will have much less of a logical leg to stand on. Which will lead to the next victory for equality in the next state. And eventually, when people are met with the evidence that allowing gays to marry does hurt anyone and are able to put aside prejudice we will hopefully realize the dream of liberty, equality and justice for all.
Congressman Frank said that he tends pessimistic but that he believed that this will cease to be an issue in 20 years. I tend to agree.
(no subject)
Nevertheless, it's absolutely clear that the problem of divorce is not caused by liberalism, despite what some want to believe. And there are lots of cases where it's hypocritical for conservatives to sneer at Those Immoral New York and Massachusetts Liberals. What about the rate of giving to the poor?
(insert stuff you and Julian already said better than I could)
Uncertain about information
It also strikes me as odd to contrast Jews with people who put an emphasis on education, as Jews do tend to be highly educated. (I didn't see the section that made the suggestion you mentioned about education; where is it?)
I'm just feeling kind of uncertain about these results and not sure of what you're trying to say about Jews and Conservative Protestants.
-MJNH
Re: Uncertain about information
In any case, I apologize if you read this as contrasting Jews with any other group - I'm merely reporting what the statistics of this study showed.
Mostly, though, I suspect that there are other correlations here which we aren't seeing, like income level and educational level. The point was simply that people are wrong to blindly correlate religion and divorce rates.
a second chance
Of course, one completely out-of-my-butt theory on why Baptists in particular could have higher divorce rates is that the religion (as practiced where I'm from) is highly focussed on the idea of rebirth and faith: essentially a second chance.
If this were a study based on Oklahoma, I would cry 'foul' because the relative numbers of the different groups are so large that across the board comparisons are silly. Plus eastern Oklahoma has a huge number of traditional and semi-traditional Cherokee, a matrilinial society that traditionally once put great emphasis on the born right of people to be wrong, and to end marriage with little fuss (more fuss now, bigger deal than it used to be, but still...). Most of those people, if they have a Christian religion, are Baptists.