In discussions about preserving the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing or related discussions, I have repeatedly seen the claim that the USA, which has the federal DOMA, where majority of states have rejected the neutering of marriage, and where Judeo-Christian religions are more prominent in the public discourse - has a higher divorce rate than European countries that are decidedly more secular and recognize same-sex pairings as marriage or darn close to it. The same is said of "red states" and states that have rejected the neutering of marriage as compared to "blue states" and states that have neutered their marriage licensing. See here, here, and here.
Granting that the claim is true, I think Dennis Prager brought up an important point on his radio show today. In those European countries it is socially acceptable for husbands to have mistresses. A married person, especially a man, having sex with someone other than his spouse, having nights out on the town and vacations with others isn't considered problematic in the same way as it is in the USA. Prager muses that there would be a lot less divorce in the USA if husbands here had the same social leeway.
[Much more after the jump.]
I think that to some extent, the same principle may also be at work between the states.
The Bible does not encourage divorce, but it permits divorce when there are certain conditions, such as infidelity. Even someone who is socially conservative but not inclined towards Biblical religion may look at marriage as something you stick with unless the monogamy is forsaken. Someone who takes her (or his) vows seriously and sees infidelity as a grave violation may understandably be motivated to file for divorce when the spouse steps out.
Are legal marriages in which the spouses are essentially just housemates really marriages? If a woman has been all but abandoned by her husband and desperately wants a real marriage doing a bad thing by divorcing him and seeking a new husband – rather than taking on a lover and staying legally married?
It is possible that there is less infidelity in red states (especially if you count it as infidelity even if both spouses were aware and consenting or even participating) but more divorce because infidelity is less tolerated.
Yes, I want the divorce rate to go down. But I want it to go down because people prepare themselves to be good spouses, marry the right person, and then live as good, faithful spouses – not because married people simply stop taking marriage seriously enough to divorce when their spouse has essentially moved on. If people do not take marriage seriously, they aren't likely to put in the effort to oppose the neutering of marriage, either.
If you calculate the number of co-habitating relationships that lead to break-up and not marriage, blue states would probably have the same rate if not higher of unstable relationships. Yes people marry later here in Massachusetts, but they are more likely to cohabit and at times break up. People also marry in Massachusetts, but possibly divorce in another state considering out higher rate of out-migration of young families.
ReplyDeleteHere from science direct on the cohabitation/divorce correlation.
I'm not sure how they can follow divorce marriage rates without considering forms of migration.
Example here from an article on job growth in Massachusetts in 08' citing a Mass Inc report...
"Many of the out-migrants were young families with children. Their exodus from the state has reduced the number of active labor force participants, future labor force participants, and the number of adult taxpayers who would have favorably contributed to the fiscal position of both state and local governments. The loss of this potential pool of labor will constrain future job and economic growth in the state. We are losing our economic future."
the blog opinion has it as this...
"Wouldn’t “lack of job opportunities, a high cost of living, housing affordability problems and an unpleasant climate” be as detrimental to foreigners as they are to Americans? Yes, they probably do, so what it boils down to is basically that Massachusetts is too crappy for Americans but good enough for foreigners. That’s not a tremendously good grade for the second oldest chunk of what is now America."
BTW I love Massachusetts, I'm just frustrated.
Exactly what opponent of neutered marriage ever predicted that its big effect would be a rise in divorce rates? The use of this straw man argument to refute is, of course, related to that straw man question neutered marriage advocates like to ask: "how does same-sex marriage hurt your marriage"? When the real question to be asked is, how will neutering marriage affect the way that marriage is perceived in the future?
ReplyDeleteMore relevant (and more likely) than a quick rise in divorce rates is whether or not neutering marriage will lead to a lower marriage rate and to a rise in illegitimacy rates, as well as an increase in premarital sexual activity, an increase in bisexual experimentation (especially among the young), and a blurring of the distinction between friendship and sexual relationship. I too do not expect that long-term stable heterosexual couples will be more likely to divorce after a few years of neutered marriage. Years down the line it may be a different story, for a number of reasons which I'll get to at another time. But I don't expect it to be one of the first effects observed.
As for the other effects, well, there is already at least some evidence that they are indeed either more likely under neutered marriage or at least more associated with jurisdictions that accept it or are seriously debating it, though it may take years before the data can be sorted out to finally determine cause and effect relationship in a way that all can agree on. And then the effects of each of these effects will become major questions to ask as well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWalrus: The same is said of "red states" and states that have rejected the neutering of marriage as compared to "blue states" and states that have neutered their marriage licensing. See here, here, and here.
ReplyDeleteOf the three links you provided, the last is broken and the second is just puffery about the first.
At the bottom of the first link is the table which the author claims supports his thesis. Other than the fact Massachusetts ranks high on the most-improved list, the table itself does not bear out the author's stated conclusion, certainly not in a "statistically significant" way. The author baldly states "the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage." Many of the states in the upper part of the table are red or orange signifying they have not redefined marriage.
A much higher correlation exists between birth rate and divorce rate. States (and countries) with low birth rates tend to have lower divorce rates as well. (States with low birth rates are also less likely to consider the needs of children in defining their marriage laws, but that is off topic since no state has actually voted for neutering marriage.) Children are also a significant stressor on young marriages and one of the leading motivators for divorce. Younger marriages are also more likely to have children than older marriages and are also less stable simply because younger marriages tend to be newer marriages. I suspect a much stronger correlation between a state's declining divorce rate and a declining birth rate over the same period than with an enactment of neutered marriage after the study period ended as the author wishes.
Finally, as pointed out parenthetically, above, the enactment of neutered marriage is not a suitable proxy for the prevailing attitude about marriage in a state's or country's population. In Massachusetts, for example, marriage was neutered by judicial fiat and the people were specifically banned from voting on it. Even where marriage was neutered by an elected legislature that only relates to public attitude to the extent one believes a representative government is truly representative. In California, for example, the people voted twice against neutering marriage and despite that, their legislature voted twice for it.