Gay Marriage Improves Straight Marriages?

OT

Just thought you might like the header graphic at the top of this blog.

http://bztv.typepad.com/

There's also a book by the same title, which I didn't discover until after I started this blog 3 years ago. I'm kind of surprised I've never heard from the author of that book. It actually is the title of a monthly column I wrote for a magazine back in the mid 90s, so I have no doubt I had it first.

Have they ever really predicted that divorce would become more prevalent? They would never let you pin them down with facts like that. What they mean by destroying marriage is the existence of marriages and families which are different from the Leave it to Beaver type that they idolize.

These US stats follow recent studies of Scandavian marriage showing divorce rates down and hetero marriage rates up after recognizing same sex marriages and civil unions. I'm just waiting to hear the spin on these new stats.

While you carefully noted that this correlation doesn't prove anything, it is worth speculating a bit. If I had to guess, I would bet that the states mentioned also show these statistical patterns:

* decreased rate of marriage
* greater average age of first marriage
* higher per capita income
* higher proportion of unmarried people living together

Any of these things could decrease the divorce rate -- some of these reasons the religious right would see as good, some bad.

Nick,

greater average age of first marriage and higher per capita income correlate actually with lower divorce rates.

Also, as a group AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, and TX have both higher marriage and higher divorce rates than MA or than the other, more same sex marriage friendly state group mentioned in my survey.

Now, the ratio of divorces to marriages is somewhat significant - Massachusetts has one of the best ratios in the country so that even though the state marriage rate is lower than the national average those who marry in MA tend to stay married longer than in most of the rest of the US.

High marriage/high divorce rates are tough on children : that combination signifies a greater rate of family breakup.

However, extracting meaning, or significane, from the correlations I've written about would be very complex - to put it mildly.

Here are a few other major correlations w/divorce rates: per capita income and divorce rates correlate fairly nicely - as income rises divorce rates drop. Some would say marital fidelity ( not infidelity here but committment to keep marriages together ) functions in part as a wealth preservation strategy.Education attainment also correlates positively with divorce rates : as education rises divorce rates drop.

I think there is a clear correlation between the age at which people get married, the lower marriage rate and the lower divorce rate. With people tending to wait longer before getting married, that obviously brings down the marriage rate. But that can't be anything but a good thing because it means more mature decisions in terms of our choice of spouse and how we handle problems that come up. When people get married at an average age of 20 or 21, the divorce rate is far higher than for those who get married at 27 or 28, for obvious reasons. That means better marriages.

Figuring out Divorce in this country is actually pretty difficult. I looked at a fair amount of data on this recently and found divorce has a pretty strong red state correlation, and when studied among religious groups, ironically, divorce is highest among evangelical christians compared to atheists and catholics as found by the Barna study.

Now marriage rates are not that different between states, although the average age at time of marriage might be significantly different as Ed suggested, but I think the explanation for these higher divorce rates in these red states and the states you mentioned might just be the larger number of fundamentalist Christians, who ironically, have more difficulty keeping marriages intact.

Now that's funny if you ask me.

I've always like this little gem:

The idea that allowing SSM would somehow dissuade heterosexual couples from marrying seems far fetched. Suppose we have a young couple who have lived together for several years and are thinking about starting a family. They wonder whether or not they should marry first.

The way it is now, they might say, "Well, look at that gay couple down the street. They are successful in living their lives and raising their family without being married, so why should we bother?"

Were the situation different, they might say, "Well, look at that gay couple down the street. Why, they can't even have a baby together! Yet they thought it important enough for themselves and their children to get married anyway. We should consider doing the same."

Bill

divorce is highest among evangelical christians compared to atheists and catholics as found by the Barna study.

Some of that I imagine is due to the fact that many Christians believe very strongly that pre-marital sex is absolutely wrong. Being human they want to have sex adn therefore get maried younger and for the wrong reason.

That probably has an effect but the number of people who wait to have sex until marriage is pretty small. Even the number of people who are against premarital sex is small and getting smaller by the decade. I guess it would be higher among religious people though, so it probably does have a noticeable effect. I think people who wait until marriage risk sexual incompatibility anyways.

Evangelicals have a relatively high divorce rate for a number of factors already mentioned, as well as one that has been skipped. I'm starting a divorce recovery group at my Southern Baptist church next month, so I've been giving the numbers a good working over the last couple of months.

Evangelicals' age at first marriage is quite young, which is the single best predictor of divorce. Abstinance has very little to do with this decision; most studies seem to show that abstinance programs delay the onset of intercourse by a few months at most, and have zero effect on other, non-procreative forms of sex.

Second, the reason so many are marrying young is that too many are failing to pursue any education beyond high school. Low levels of education also strongly correlate with high rates of divorce.

An often overlooked reason for the high divorce rate among evangelicals is that we often do a terrible job of providing a support network for young families that might be having troubles. We're better at arranging socials for middle-class folks with kids than the young couple just getting started. It's a cultural oversight, and one that many churches are now trying to address. We've got a long way to go.

Finally, there is a methodological spoiler to the whole issue: Evangelicals have an extremely low rate of cohabitation (if not unwed mothers, but that's a separate issue). Since 80+ percent of cohabitations end within seven years (the median marriage in the US is currently about 7.4 years), those really should be counted against the "secular" side of the ledger. In truth, evangelical relationships are surviving at least as well as the national average, and better considering the handicaps listed above. We've still got a long way to go.

Some of that I imagine is due to the fact that many Christians believe very strongly that pre-marital sex is absolutely wrong. Being human they want to have sex adn therefore get maried younger and for the wrong reason.

Well - and this is admittedly anecdotal data - when my Southern Baptist cousin had to get married a few years ago (all that was missing was the shotgun), I was stunned by the high rate of divorce among his friends and acquaintances. My cousin was 22, and at least 1/2 of the guys at his bachelor party were already divorced, and around his age. Nearly everyone got married because they got the girl pregnant, but then the relationship did not work out because of their age and the stress of providing for a young child. It was like a 50s moral mentality coupled with a 90s ease of divorce. From discussions with my cousin and his family/friends, this was a pretty typical thing, although interestingly my cousin and his wife are still together, so they beat the odds.

Ever since then I have wondered whether differences in the rate of use of contraception during premarital sex, rather than the actual sex itself, could be a factor in the high divorce rate, if you couple that with a huge distaste for abortion.

"Ever since then I have wondered whether differences in the rate of use of contraception during premarital sex, rather than the actual sex itself, could be a factor in the high divorce rate, if you couple that with a huge distaste for abortion."

Definitely. In my church we have a staggering rate of unmarried mothers. That they are choosing to go that route rather than a shotgun wedding bound for failure is actually something of an improvement.

High marriage/high divorce rates are tough on children : that combination signifies a greater rate of family breakup.

This is what alot of people think but there are now more studies indicating that a bad marriage is actually more detrimental than a divorce to a child. Especially if that child is eventually raised with positive step-parents.

An often overlooked reason for the high divorce rate among evangelicals is that we often do a terrible job of providing a support network for young families that might be having troubles

I don't think this is valid. Most of the churches I know have extensive family/marital services.

Evangelicals have an extremely low rate of cohabitation (if not unwed mothers, but that's a separate issue).

This is demostrably false. Evangelicals cohabit at the same rate as everyone else. Virtually all of my evangelical friends have cohabitated at least once. They felt they where doing wrong but planned to marry eventually. Some did and some didn't. To say this group has a lower rate than any other group would go against everything that Barna and other surveys have found. Simply put ones religious leaning have little effect on the overall behaviour.

Since 80+ percent of cohabitations end within seven years (the median marriage in the US is currently about 7.4 years), those really should be counted against the "secular" side of the ledger.

No they shouldn't.
A. These are not marriages and are rarely treated as such. If one views marriage as a life long committment and a social contract that is. If one views the simple act of living in the same house with someone a 'marriage' I think they don't understand marriage at all from the beginning.

B. Christians of all forms and types are doing this at the same rate as non-Christians. Think of all the people you know who have 'shacked up' and most of them will claim Christianity just due to the nature of our population. You can't put this pseudo info on one side without a spike on the other that will be much bigger. A pastor I know said he didn't think he ever married anyone who hadn't already been living together in the last 10 years.

C. Information on cohabitations is far from reliable. There is no way to know how many people do this or how long they stay together. Heck 1000's of college students annually with their yearly bf/gf. A pastor I know said he didn't think he ever married anyone who hadn't already been living together in the last 10 years.

In truth, evangelical relationships are surviving at least as well as the national average, and better considering the handicaps listed above. We've still got a long way to go.

They are at the national average which is exactly where the pollsters say they are, no different from anyone else.

That they are choosing to go that route rather than a shotgun wedding bound for failure is actually something of an improvement.

I'm curious why would that be an improvement? Say they get married and it works? Or they get married and get divorced in 5 years?

How is it better one way or the other? If I'm 19 and I get pregnant and marry and get divorced 5 years later I'm then single with a child at 24.

If I don't marry I'm single with a child at 19 and likely looking for potential mates. I don't see how that is 'something of an improvement'.

Here's a different angle I haven't seen mentioned yet. In a society that doesn't accept gays (and making same sex marriage illegal is one piece of that), some gay people would make an effort to be/appear straight, including marrying. But many would not be able to maintain those marriages forever and would end up divorced. In societies where being gay is accepted, gay people could figure out their orientation earlier and avoid an unfortunate first marriage. I write this as someone whose first wife came out as lesbian several years into our marriage.

GregL,

I think that is an interesting point and sorry for the pain in your life. However I don't think these are of any appreciable number even though I know of one case myself.

I think marriage as a concept, meaning a lifelong committment via a marriage contract, originated when people lived far shorter lives. When people marry later today 98+% of them will have had a variety of relationships and sex partners. By the time they marry today most of their ancestors would have been on death doorstep. By marrying later they simply reduce the number of years they are how shall we say it , of an age where they are 'in the game' so to speak. You marry young and your options still abound and that temptation is strong.

Marry at 18 and your going to watch a bunch of friends and such have a blast and screw for the next 10-15 years until they settle in. Marry later and your settling in just as your best if used by sticker is being printed. More incentive to stay put.

Somewhat Jaded I know but I used to volunteer around alot of seniors, people who had been married 50+ years in many cases. I was simply floored by the number of women who would have loved to get a divorce but said they couldn't for financial or other such reasons. Any one who thinks the majority of marriages are sacred should spend more time with older folks. For every success story I had 10 of those.

But I love my wife.:-) Wonder what she'll say when she is 90?