Tom at Family Scholars Blog links approvingly to this New Republic piece by Jeffrey Friedman:
We’ve heard a lot recently about how red-state residents favor smaller government while benefiting disproportionately from federal largesse; and how they value the sanctity of heterosexual marriage while divorcing more often than the residents of blue states. To be sure, these arguments also suffer from the fallacy of composition: Red-state divorcees may not be Bush voters; and those areas of the red states that consume the largest portions of federal tax money may in fact be liberal enclaves in otherwise conservative regions. But put aside those details and assume that red-state voters really are hypocrites. Even if true, it is still a lousy line of argument for liberals to indulge.
Rather than attacking the specific policies promoted by values voters”“policies that can, and should, be fought on their merits”“the charge of hypocrisy attacks the voters themselves. But it’s an elementary point of logic that a claim’s validity is independent of the character of those who advocate it. A truth is a truth, no more or less true because of who believes it. The whole issue of hypocrisy, then, for all the importance it routinely assumes in political discourse, is a red herring.
If a professed atheist secretly worships God “just in case,’? we’re entitled to say that he lacks the courage of his convictions. But we aren’t entitled to say that those convictions are false. God exists, or doesn’t exist, regardless of what any atheist secretly believes. The same goes for the beliefs of values voters…
As a general point of logic, Friedman is of course correct. But I think he’s missing the point of the discussion about the divorce statistics. Divorce statistics – and also teen pregnancy statistics – are interesting not only because they show that red-staters are hypocrites, but because they are solid evidence in an important policy question.
Conservatives claim, again and again, that if too many people recognize same-sex marriage, and also have liberal attitudes towards divorce, that will lead to higher divorce rates. They use this “fact” to support anti-woman, anti-queer policies, such as eliminating no-fault divorce (screw battered women who can’t prove battery in a court of law!) and opposing same-sex marriage and even civil unions. In the face of that claim, it’s logically relevant that Connecticut and Massachusetts – probably the queer-friendliest states in the union – are also the two states whose divorce rates are lowest.
Similarly, considering all the claims we hear about abstinence-only education, it’s relevant that abstinence-only is apparently a big, fat failure in Texas, whereas Berkeley – where sex ed teaches both abstinance and birth control – has seen teen pregnancies drop.
I admit, there is some joy in seeing red-state moralists – many (not all) of whom are the most condesending, arrogant people I’ve ever dealt with, the kind of people who only pause in patting their own backs to declare their superiority to immoral, queer-hugging godless blue-staters like me – proved wrong. And if I was a better person, I wouldn’t take any pleasure in seeing egg on their smug, “I’m-so-much-better-than-thou” faces.
So I’m not as good a person as I should be. That doesn’t change the fact that what’s being discussed here is a policy question. Which kind of culture should our policy encourage? What kind of culture leads to more divorce, and more teen pregnancy? And if we don’t forget about the policy question – as Mr. Friedman apparently did, in the above-quoted passage – then logically, it’s not at all a red herring to notice that Massachusetts and Connecticut have the lowest divorce rates and the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country.
* * *
About that smugness: I’d be remiss not to acknowledge that red-state moralists see things just the opposite way. They think that they’re humble, nice people who aren’t at all judgmental prigs, and that the only smug moralists in this debate are blue-staters like me. Such is the human condition.
(By the way, I use the term “red-staters” and “blue-staters” to refer more to states of mind than to states of residence. There are plenty of red-staters living in blue states, and vice versa.)
Is there anything we can do about this? I doubt it. Obviously, when I say that there’s nothing wrong with same-sex relationships, and furthermore that bigotry against same-sexers is evil and should be opposed, I’m striking at the heart of the red-stater belief system. My experience is that no matter how hard I try to sugarcoat that, red-staters tend to take the message that their belief system is horribly wrong a bit personally (not exactly a surprising reaction). And the same is true in reverse, of course.
I don’t see that Friedman is “as a general point of logic” correct. The analytical and governmental/policy/funding unit in question is the state. It is not necessary to take the analysis to individual voters, since we don’t know how individuals voted. One could take the analysis to the level of the precinct, but after all, the individual precincts do not make policy nor are they the direct recipients of federal largess – that policy making and federal funding recipient unit is the state in most instances (admittedly some federal funds are spent on federal facilities such as military bases and federal prisons, and states have no governance there).
I’m going to play the devil’s advocate here, not because I agree with red state “moral values”, but just out of interest of fairness. It’s possible that the causation could be reversed – that when people see more teen pregnancy or divorce already happening (for other reasons, perhaps), they will tend to push more for “moral values”. It would be like saying that “blue state” morality (e.g. gun control laws, peace-oriented philosophy) are hypocritical because there is more violent crime in blue states. (Actually, I don’t really know if there is more violent crime in blue states, but let’s just say for argument’s sake…) It just doesn’t seem like a perfectly fair line of attack.
Actually, I don’t even think red-staters are hypocrites. I think they’re wrong, but being wrong doesn’t make one a hypocrite.
And it’s certainly true that the fact that “red states” have better stats, by and large, on divorce and teen pregnancy doesn’t prove that red state culture leads to lowever divorce and less teen pregnancy. It could be, as you say, that there is some other cause which accounts for the discrepancy.
As a red-state resident, I hate to say that when it comes to teen pregnancy at least, a lot of people just derive so much satisfaction out of judging girls who get pregnant that it’s hard to get them to really consider methods of reducing the pregnancy rate.
Those divorce numbers are by population, and thus valueless for comparative purposes.
Of more utility is comparing the number of marriages versus the number of divorces in each state. This measure is still very imperfect but infinitely better than a flat divorces per 1000 people, which is what you’re working from. A good measure would have to take into account past behavior, demographic changes in the state over time, prevalence of unmarried cohabitation, and a lot of other factors that are pretty hard to nail down. But this is better than nothing.
Best data I can find is from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/48_19_3.pdf
My envelope-back calculation shows that the top five states for divorce are (in order) OK, NH, DE, WA, MS; two reds and three blues. The bottom five are SC, MA, CT, HI, NV: two reds and three blues. The list as a whole is pretty mixed, color-wise; there’s no apparent pattern.
You’re right, that’s a better way of measurement. Although you should cut out Nevada and Hawaii as outliers, since the huge number of people who travel to those states to get married, but actually live and divorce in the other 48 states, makes the marrige/divorce ratio for those two states meaningless.
I also think there must be something weird going on regarding Oklahoma to make it so extreme, but I don’t know what.
The Free Republic has done the math. Actually, those states that voted most strongly for Kerry are all among the top third (“top” being those states with the lowest divorce rates)., which the New Republic attributes to gay couples and college students. Could be, although I don’t think of Conn as an especially college-heavy state (Yale is famous, but it’s not that big).
No matter how you slice it, though – and even using the Free Republic”s preferred measure – the fact remains that there isn’t any sign of an especially high divorce rate in gay-friendly Massachusetts and Connecticut – the one state with same-sex marriage, and the other seriously considering it.
Yep, that’s true.
From living in Oklahoma, I would guess that the high rate there comes from an exceptionally high rate of very youthful marriage, coupled with a fairly low general level of human and material capital. (I bet if you added human capital to material capital per capita by state, corrected it for cost of living, and compared that to divorce rates, you’d see a strong correlation.)
Personally, I don’t think we’re going to find much support in the social science data for any particular position on these issues, not in a timely fashion, anyway. Whatever impact a change like same sex marriage may have will be hard to measure, and will be a long way downstream.
It is amusing that you got the data from Free Republic. I got it there too, but recognizing the affiliational schism between the two sites, I went back to the cited primary source and re-did their numbers to be sure. :)
I’ve often wondered where the logic is in correlating support for same sex marriages and no support for the embattled institution of marriage. That is, if you are a supporter of same sex couples getting the same deal as heterosexual couples then you are necessarily against any reformation of the divorce industry like putting the ‘fault’ back in there and having ‘shared parenting’ as the default on divorce.
Seems to me that marriage is in big trouble and that would be just fine (adults can take care of themselves) except for the collateral damage to the innocents – aka the children. Then too easy divorces and the automatic loss of a parent don’t seem that good, given that a society’s health is only as good as the health of the next generation.
I think the whole marriage deal needs a re-think – strengthen the institution – make it that much harder to divorce for flimsy reasons, especially when there are children – rarely do they ask their parents to divorce. Then widen the definition. If same sex marriages are a valid and viable alternative to heterosexual unions then is there any reason to bar polygamy, polyandry, group marriages, line marriages or any other variation on the commitment to a lasting relationship theme?
Baloney. why is gay marriage any more of a gateway to polygamy than straight marriage? Oh, wait. That was also used about inter-racial marriage, and then there’s always man-on-dog Santorum. Hmmmm. Slippery slope argument dismissed.
Pthhhhhht!
Studies have shown that kids are not necessarily worse off when their parents divorce. In fact, in “cordial” divorces where both parents remain involved and the kids remain a priority, they do okay. It beats bad marriages or beatings or lies. And shared parenting is quite common. Maybe you should consider that many divorces aren’t the “screw the …..” mode that steals custody and messes with kids, and actually are a civilized, adult recognition of a situation that doesn’t work but does put kids ahead. Putting the “fault” back isn’tnecessarily the solution.
Perhaps in “protecting the innocent” you should think more about a system that allows any two drunk (but straight) people to get married and make a baby all in one night. And then annul it. Maybe the “fault” shold be in the ease with which people can enter in marriage, not the ease they can leave it.
In any event, this is not relevant to the issue of gay marriage per se. Except that, oh well, gay folks do have kids and are trying to protect them. Like me. We have two kids. We are a family. We are gay and have no protection. now that’s family friendly…not!
What to do?
1) Make civil unions for any two consenting, unrelated adults. Civil contracts should be gender neutral. Civil rights should be available to all citizens.
2) Make “marriage” a provenance of churches. Oh, and remember—there are churches that DO marry gay people.
Rather than making it harder to get divorced, which would cause problems for people in abusive situations, why not just make it harder to *get* married? I can’t even get a dog from the pound in my area without filling out forms, waiting while they check that I really do have that fenced in yard I said I do, and agreeing to possible future checks on any animal they might give me.
If I want to get married? I need to show up with the person I want to marry, a photo ID, my social security card, and 50 bucks. And poof! I can married immediately. No muss, no fuss, no questions, no need to prove any serious intent at commitment.
Why not make it harder to get married? Make people prove intent, make them prove they are serious about it? A waiting period? Classes they have to take, and pass? That way *anyone* who wants to get married, be they gay, heterosexual, or wanting a group marriage have to show enough commitment that they will follow through. If you make it difficult enough to get married, only those who truly want it enough to stay married will do it.
Just wanted to say thanks for linking to me! I read your blog religiously, so I was quite excited to see that. Keep up the great work!
I still can’t help but to chuckle a bit at the fact that red-states have higher pregnancy and divorce rates then blue states. Still, it doesn’t mean their hypocrites, but it’s interesting when red-state politicians and evangelicals go on tirades against how “immoral” blue state folks are due to our openess and tolerance about same-sex marriage and comprehensive/progressive sex-ed programs, and yet, it appears that their states have serious issues concerning their divorce rates and teen pregnancy.
So personally, I think the evangelicals and red-state politicians need to focus their work on improving “the state of traditional/moral family values and it’s powerful influence” within their own territory. Ah irony, where would we be without you?
And Amp, I can’t find your email address, but I made a blog (yes I’m blog whoring). Just click on my username and feel free to browse and what not–you know.
The factor most closely correlated with rate of divorce is age at marriage. I tend to think that red states (some, anyway) have a lower age at first marriage because of — lower educational attainment (finish school earlier), and cultural expectations, based both on the nature and the size of the community (it’s easier to coerce people in a smaller social group). I read a fascinating article that assessed the attitudes of evangelical protestant ministers faced with a cohabiting couple. Fully 80% counseled the couple to get married. It’s not just the cohabitants who aren’t taking marriage seriously. In reality, the ministers were more worried about the couple’s sinful extramarital sexual behavior than their happiness within marriage (though I’m sure they didn’t think of it this way). In states like Massachusetts and lots of other metropolitan areas, your first “real” relationship usually fails but doesn’t result in children or divorce because it never made it to the altar. This was certainly the experience of both my husband and me. In the Bible Belt, much more pressure would be exerted on the parties to such relationships to marry. No one wants to acknowledget that waiting to marry, while healthy for marriage, usually means that adults will be engaged in pre-marital sex. Which is a dilemma for those who adhere to the notions of sexual morality of the Old Testament.
I’ve also heard it argued that the evangelical attitude of cut-and-dried Right v. Wrong, Evil v. Good, my way (the side of the angels) v. your way ( the side of the devil) can make it pretty hard to make a marriage work. When everything is turned into a power struggle, where there is not room for compromise (since that’s a suspiciously liberal concept), someone is always going to be unhappy.
In a sense, blue-staters may be also a little more flexible — a little more willing to overlook that affair or at least forgive it, or the other little crises that arise in a marriage. Roll with the punches. Let bygones be bygones, rather than turn every disagreement into a Culture Wars Values Crisis.
Barbara’s got a good point. How do you account for the possibility that states like Massachusetts may see much higher rates of cohabitation (and then splitting up) than Mississippi? From the “red state perspective,” that type of behavior is just as bad as divorce. Why not figure out what those statistics are?
Plus, isn’t this another case of observing a correlation (or lack thereof) and then falsely deducing something about causation? Perhaps the Massachusetts figures are low because of (1) greater wealth; (2) higher age at marriage; (3) greater numbers of people cohabiting (as above). Right? In that case, one could still make the argument that support for gay marriage has increased Massachusetts’ divorce rate above what it would otherwise be. Same on the flip side: Mississippi’s divorce figures are because of the opposite factors: (1) poverty; (2) youthful marriages; (3) the fact that people get married who would be cohabiting if they lived in Massachusetts. And there too, one could argue that if Mississippi instituted gay marriage, the divorce rate would be even higher than it already is.
Now, of course, that’s NOT to argue that gay marriage increases the divorce rate. It’s just to say that Amp’s counter-argument is probably based on specious correlations, and therefore doesn’t do the job.
P.S. — I also agree that if you perceive a high level of broken marriage and out of wedlock pregnancies you might take both issues more seriously. The same is true of those who are “law and order” conservatives — they generally perceive that there is a high level of crime around them, which may or may not be true, but it’s very hard for a single person to rate the accuracy of his or her perception, which may be fueled by how news is conveyed as much as anything else. The rate of violent criminal behavior has traditionally been higher in southern states but I haven’t seen studies that are more recent than the mid to late 80s, so things may have changed.
As for “black and white” perception, I don’t know, though I think that those who aspire to fulfill traditional gender roles generally have a tougher time when economics dictate that both spouses work and the husband can’t maintain his family on one income. I’m sure this could lead to even more serious spousal conflict than economic issues usually do.
Jack V., I agree that the “failed first relationship” phenomenon does account for a lower divorce rate in places like Massachusetts (and age at marriage both follows and leads this statistic), however, I don’t think anyone, red staters included, would view this as being “just as bad” as divorce. From a social policy perspective, the only really bad thing about divorce, usually, anyway, is that it can leave the economic and social well-being of children in the dust. Non-marital failure isn’t usually accompanied by the same social consequences as divorce. In fact, such failure might lead you to have an even better marriage. Certainly, it leaves you room for personal experimentation without damaging young children.
Since my daughter just turned 13 my husband and I have been discussing this whole issue alot — and I have come to believe that, in many cases, what is healthy for the individual and society as a whole is usually incompatible with tightly focused views of sexual morality. Leading to alot of mixed messages, double speak and heartache.
But there are a lot of factors lurking here — educational and economic attainment, for instance, which are also highly correlated with later age at first marriage.
Here’s something that always nags at me: why should we assume that high divorce rates are a terrible thing?
I agree. People seem to confuse divorce as a legal procedure with the end of a marriage as a loving relationship. Sure, society can do all sorts of things and throw up all kinds of road blocks to make the legal procedure more expensive, more intrusive on your privacy, more acrimonious (must find fault, after all). But all of that does not change the fact that the home is already broken. Divorce simply acknowledges in law what has happened in fact. And if you make it too difficult or expensive (or outlaw it as Chile did for many years), you simply increase desertions or other “informal” ways of ending relationships. This is an improvement???
And I hate all these commentators who think people are slipping out of marriages because they are a little bored. Does that really happen except with narcissistic Hollywood types? Anyone I know who has divorced has come to that decision after years of agony and indecision. True misery. Years of trying. Marriage counselors and the whole bit. Maybe you could argue that it has something to do with where I live, but that’s what I see. I don’t see any casual attitude about it at all. Of course, I think there is a certain snottiness here. MY marriage broke up for good and honest reasons, but yours did for superficial reasons. Oh really? And how do you know? Did you live in my house? Honestly, the gall of these people….
Here’s something that always nags at me: why should we assume that high divorce rates are a terrible thing?
Why should we assume that it’s a bad thing if 50% of all businesses break their most substantial contracts and are then sued in court? Obviously, because keeping contracts is a good thing, not having to resort to the legal system saves everyone time, trouble, and expense, and so forth.
I don’t think anyone, red staters included, would view this as being “just as bad”? as divorce. From a social policy perspective, the only really bad thing about divorce, usually, anyway, is that it can leave the economic and social well-being of children in the dust. Non-marital failure isn’t usually accompanied by the same social consequences as divorce. In fact, such failure might lead you to have an even better marriage. Certainly, it leaves you room for personal experimentation without damaging young children.
(1) Why isn’t it a bad thing to break promises? Even for childless couples.
(2) Who says that cohabiting people never have children? If they do, then their separation is just as damaging as would be a divorce. If they don’t have children, their separation is still as damaging as the divorce of childless married couples. In either case, people made some kind of commitment to each other, and then reneged.
(3) What makes you think that cohabiting and splitting up might “lead you to have an even better marriage”? Social science evidence shows the opposite.
Most divorces are consensual. All contracts are subject to amendment by mutual agreement of the parties. That’s a silly objection.
Even for divorces that are unwanted by one or more of the spouses, there is simply a limit on the extent to which open-ended promises will be enforced. Most business contracts are not eternal, they are time limited and have precise terms. The analogy between the two is imperfect, to say the least. Prior to marriage, people often have expectations spoken or unspoken and a marriage contract is as much a statement of hope that those expectations will be met, or will be changed for the better, as it is of mutual promise. People can be wrong about these things. I don’t exactly understand why it’s the end of the world if feelings change.
Some people who cohabit have children, no doubt, it’s a big world out there and I’m sure that their break is also hard on children. So marriage/divorce isn’t the issue, it’s the impact of parental separation on children, I’ll buy that.
The studies I’ve seen on cohabitation relate to studies of those who married after cohabiting (as in, the same people), which is by definition something I’m not talking about. But what I am talking about doesn’t necessarily include cohabitation at all, just intense romantic relationships that are basically monogamous and include sexual activity. It’s kind of hard to assess something like that in the same way. I am not generally in favor of cohabitation because I think it has most of the drawbacks of marriage with none of the benefits, especially for the female. By my reckoning, almost anything that delays the age at which one marries to somewhere after 25 and beyond is likely to result in a better marriage, but what can I say, I got married at the age of 29 and I’ve been married to the same person for almost 16 years. I am certain that if I had married either of my two serious boyfriends prior to that time I would now be divorced with a couple of kids.
Frankly, I think the entire debate over divorce rates is a red herring. It frames the debate as the anti-gay-marriage folks want it to be. Instead of answering “Gay marriage raises divorce rates” with “no, it doesn’t; I have stats!” shouldn’t we be rebuking the highly flawed premise that what others do in their own relationships have any bearing on our own? How exactly would gay marriage cause divorce? “Oh, look, honey — Joe and Bob across the street got married. I’ve just realized that our marriage of ten years is an utter sham; I’m going to divorce you and find a gay lover.” Please. Let’s reframe the issue.
>The factor most closely correlated with rate of divorce is age at marriage.
Which makes it kinda funny that Brooks was babbling in the Times a few weeks ago about how women* should marry right out of college and start popping out the kids . . .
*That is, his sort of women. He seems rather worried about their fertility . . . sounds oddly familiar. I’m waiting for him and Pres. Summers to team up** and form a comedy duo, the Throwback Boys . . .
** Now calm down, Mr. Santorum. I wasn’t talking about any sort of hot pundit-on-adminstrator action, honestly. Why, Mr. Santorum, you seem so flushed – and you’re breathing heavily – are you quite alright? What? Would I . . .? Senator! Honestly! I’m shocked!! . . .
-Dan S.
It should be pointed out that no one had a problem with no-fault divorce until women started to take advantage of it. Women file for most divorces today. So, the call to roll back no-fault divorce is more of a call to keep women for filing for divorce as opposed to making divorce more difficult in general. The same applies to creating laws to make it more difficult to leave marriages, such as covenant marriage. Women file for the majority of divorces these days.
Dear IT
You wrote:
“Studies have shown that kids are not necessarily worse off when their parents divorce. In fact, in “cordial”? divorces where both parents remain involved and the kids remain a priority, they do okay. ”
Nope – they, on the whole, do worse, so those ~ 65% women filing for divorce and most of those for no reason other than feeling ‘unloved’ (quoting Cathy Young) are putting themselves ahead of their children.
For the record, shared parenting/joint custody is a long, long way from the default setting – a recent study cites 6% in Australia. I have seen some writing (not cited, I believe) that suggests that there is a marked drop in the divorce rate in the States that have adopted joint custody as the default.
“the “fault”? shold be in the ease with which people can enter in marriage, not the ease they can leave it.”
Maybe. I didn’t realise you could rock up to a celebrant, pay $50 and get hitched on the spot – that can’t happen here, not that waiting a whole month makes a lot of difference.
You have a problem with the ‘slippery slope’ dilemma? Why? Do you think there is more chance of winning the same sex marriage debate if other options are excluded? My offspring wasn’t too keen on opening the options either. I suppose it wasn’t something she or the rest of the gay community had really given much thought to. But, it’s only logical. If the standard definition needs changing then there is no real reason to exclude other possibilities.
It would be nice to have my future grandchildren under some legal protection, but I’ll take ’em any way I can get ’em.
Yeah, I’m sure it’d be great for children to grow up in a household in which their parents don’t love each other.
Sockpuppet Kant says, “Hey, kids, duty is better than desire! Only the miserable are good!”
Alyric, it sets a bad example for children, especially daughters, if a mother demonstrates that caring for yourself is wrong. I’m glad my mother set the example for me that women don’t have to put up with bad marriages. Now I know that I am not obliged, by you or by anyone, to be miserable in order to be a good woman. Yep, I’m glad my parents got divorced.
Again, I wonder about these pundits who tell us to buck up and take whatever our marriages are dishing out. If they are in happy marriages, then they obviously have no clue what they are talking about. If, on the other hand, they are downing anti-depressants by the handful or avoiding going home or in any other way dealing with the implications of long-term (as opposed to short-term) anxiety, stress, depression, and so forth, I have a feeling that they would have a hard time saying these things without their hands shaking.
God, you wouldn’t believe how much I wished my mother would divorce my father for her own sake. She really came into her own after he died.
As a former Connecticut resident and UConn alumna, I can tell you that yes, there are a lot of universities and colleges in Connecticut — Conn College, Quinnipiac, Trinity, Wesleyan, the UConn system, the other state college system, Coast Guard Academy, etc.
But I think that more important than number of college students is number of college graduates in terms of delaying marriage. Someone who’s made an investment in their education and career isn’t going to marry really young, because he or she has other options. Plus, if you’re going to live in an expensive place like the Northeast, you’re probably going to need the kind of job which requires a degree.
And I *still* haven’t seen any basis for the claim that gay marriage will threaten straight marriage. And that box turtle thing doesn’t do it.
Oh, and I wanted to add that I find it amusing that Connecticut is considered one of the gay-friendliest places in the country, since my gay friends from college all got the hell out!
Then again, I did, too.
quoting Cathy Young
Which is to say, second- or third-hand data from an opinion columnist. Hardly well-grounded.
That divorce is bad for kids overall is undisputed. The problem is that, with the advent of no-fault, you have an added complication in the math. Namely, that bad marriages would seem most likely to end in divorce. It’s not random. Kids may well do better in marriages because you have fewer “sticking together for the sake of the children.”
FWIW, the social researchers who find that divorce hurts kids also find that remarriage hurts kids. No less a social conservative than Barbara Defoe Whitehead presented research that children in stepfamilies are more likely to be depressed than children in single-parent families.
Dan S.’ vaudeville routine reminds me of how I almost fell out of my chair when I read of Santorum’s pre-Senate career: Lobbying for the World Wrestling Federation. You just can’t make up fiction better than that, though Dan comes close…