Divorce Rate in Gay Marriage-Legal MA Drops To Pre-WWII Level

James Dobson Claimed Gay Marriage Would "Destroy the Earth."

[below: A classic 2006 Daily Show episode examines claim that gay marriage has destroyed Massachsusetts.]

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass. Hysteria
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

In an August 20th column for the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman writes,

Opponents of same-sex marriage reject it on religious and moral grounds but also on practical ones. If we let homosexuals marry, they believe, a parade of horribles will follow -- the weakening of marriage as an institution, children at increased risk of broken homes, the eventual legalization of polygamy and who knows what all.

Well, guess what? We're about to find out if they're right. Unlike most public policy debates, this one is the subject of a gigantic experiment, which should definitively answer whether same-sex marriage will have a broad, destructive social impact.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire have all decided to let gays wed.

Actually, the "experiment" has been running in Massachusetts for fully 1/2 decade now. Over three years ago I wrote a story, "Christian Right Wrong on Gay Marriage", summing up the apparent non-impact of the then-2 year "experiment". Now, we have 4 consecutive years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

Back in summer 2006, after more than a year of poring over accumulating data I reported what was, to my mind, a foregone conclusion; after two years of legal gay marriage, the Bay State still boasted the lowest divorce rate of any state in the nation. That was notable in light of the absurdly histrionic claims made by leaders on the Christian right that legal gay marriage in Massachusetts would be an "apocalypse" that would destroy the institution of marriage and lead to the destruction of Western Civilization or even the Earth itself.

Now Steve Chapman has taken the next step. As he writes in his Chicago Tribune column,

I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators -- marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.

You would think they would react like Albert Pujols when presented with a hanging curveball. Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states.

One of the "conservative thinkers" who Chapman tried to solicit a prediction from, Maggie Gallagher, was active in the push to pass California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. Ms. Gallagher later responded, as I describe later in this story, to Mr. Chapman but she has narrowed her predictions dramatically since claiming, in 2003 it would adversely impact marriage and cause a rise in divorce rates. Gallagher new position is, in essence, that gay marriage will cause problems for gay marriage critics.

In short, it appears the word is getting out that gay marriage has little impact other then 1) allowing gay couples to marry and 2) providing marriage fees for clerics who conduct such marriage ceremonies. The real question is this -- how long will it take for the truth to diffuse, out into wider society ?

[below: predictions about gay marriage prior to its legalization in Massachusetts]

"marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society" - Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, in a February 5, 2004 Wall Street Journal opinion article"

"This is an important victory for those of us who wanted to preserve traditional marriage and to make sure that the mistake of Massachusetts doesn't become the mistake of the entire country" - Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, commenting on a March 30, 2006 Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling barring out of state same sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

"This is only the beginning, if we allow this [ same sex marriage ] to happen we will, in effect, have destabilized the basic institution of our society, which is marriage between a man and a woman" - Brian Camenker, President of the Parents' Rights Coalition, as quoted by MassNews, March 2000

"Taxpayers and businesses should not be compelled to subsidize either homosexual unions or non-marital heterosexual partnerships, both of which undermine the institutions of marriage and family." - Acting President of the Massachusetts Family Institute, Dan Englund, as quoted by MassNews, March 2000

"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage." - Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) during the July 2004 U.S. Senate debate on the "Federal Marriage Amendment".

"the sexual revolution led to the decoupling of marriage and procreation; same-sex "marriage" would pull them completely apart, leading to an explosive increase in family collapse...." - Charles Colson, Christianity Today, June 2004

"We must aggressively combat the homosexual effort to destroy the tradition of marriage. This nation is on the precipice of moral devastation." - Jerry Falwell, July 14, 2003

"Pro-homosexuality activists try to portray the success of their cause as inevitable. But it is not. The churches can stand against the tide of relativism and libertinism in our culture. And they can help to reverse the tide, restoring marriage to its proper place of honor" - Former President of The Institute on Religion and Democracy, Dianne Knippers, as quoted on the website of Concerned Women For America

"....a person can use his or her right to object out of conscience and refuse to comply with this crime [ gay marriage ] which represents the destruction of the world." - Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, in a May 3, 2005 interview with Fides new service.

"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." - Judge Roy Moore, Feb. 15, 2002

"Marriage is the union between a man and a woman is a truth known to each one of us already, and any attempt to allow same-sex marriages is a detriment to the family unit and hurts our state and nation." - Texas Governor Rick Perry, in an August 2005 mass email to supporters

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It [ same-sex marriage ] will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." - James Dobson, Focus on the Family, October 2004 speaking at a rally for OK GOP Senate candidate Tom Coburn

"It seems the more people consider the long-term impact of homosexual marriage on the family and society, the more they oppose homosexual marriage," - Dr. Ron Crews, President of The Massachusetts Family Institute, quoted in a January 7, 2004 "Coalition For Marriage" press release

"Any redefinition of marriage must be seen as an attack on the common good....I would hope that those who promote same-sex unions will not be so naive as to fail to recognize the impact that redefining marriage will have on American culture....Strengthening marriage in the face of widespread cohabitation and the galloping divorce rate needs to be the concern of every citizen. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family." - Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, October 2, 2003

"just a fraction of a master plan to destroy everything that is good and moral here in America." - description of the gay rights movement, from an early 1980's fundraising letter sent by Robert C. Grant of the group "Christian Voice"

Those predictions above, made prior to the May 17, 2004 court decision that made gay marriage legal in Massachusetts, represent the spectrum of dire claims made about the allegedly disastrous impact gay marriage would have on the Bay State, American society, the family, Western Civilization, and the World. "Global thermonuclear war" could have been inserted in place of "gay marriage" in some of the quotes and they would have made more sense.

After the June 26, 2003 Supreme Court decision of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law, Gallagher wrote, at the National Review Online, that "We are poised to lose the gay-marriage battle badly. It means losing the marriage debate. It means losing limited government. It means losing American civilization." Six years later, American civilization appears to be more or less intact. Gallagher also made more specific claims:

"The good news is that a marriage recovery appears to be on its way: Rates of divorce have dropped, illegitimacy is leveling off, marital fertility is on the rise, adult commitment to marital permanence is increasing, and the next generation's dislike of divorce is rising; the consensus that children do better when parents get and stay married is now broad, if shallow.

The bad news is that gay marriage will gut this marriage movement, and reverse these gains."

But legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts appears to have no effect on the Massachusetts divorce rate. That poses a big problem for highbrow critics of gay marriage such as Gallagher -- who has come up with a new list of the alleged horribles that legal gay marriage will spawn. In a Thursday, August 20th column at the National Review Online, Maggie Gallagher responded to Steve Chapman's request for predictions about the tangible effect gay marriage might have in the future but her new predictions aren't about the wider societal impact and amount to this: the success of gay legal marriage, as an institution, will cause problems for critics of gay marriage. Here are Gallagher's predictions:

1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated [sic] in any way.

4. Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.

In a similar way, Galileo's insistence that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice-versa caused problems for opponents of the Heliocentric theory such as the Catholic Church. But, in time the Church learned accept the new outlook because scientific data supported it. So, perhaps there's hope that Maggie Gallagher and other critics of gay marriage may yet come to accept that after a half decade of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts, life continues as before.

Comments

[Warthog]

And, as the hate-mongers desired, often unknowingly or unwittingly, the larger picture becomes obscured. Equality. In a truly democratic society all persons MUST receive the same acceptance and recognition. There can not be any differentiation of any sort. If there is, the society is simply not being honest with itself and prejudice of one form or another is taking precedence.

To put it bluntly, we are all treated equally before the law, or we espouse and promote bigotry. All responsible sensible people must firmly oppose this bigotry or we are, actively or tacitly, promoting it. When it comes to the law, the basic governing principles of a society, it all gets reduced to guilty or innocent. It is time America takes a good hard look at itself and takes a refresher course in it's founding principles.

[madcat007]

This WMass resident is very proud of the state in regards to not only same sex marriage, but protections from harassment and to employers who've allowed gay partners (even before marrriage became legal) to be on the health insurance policies. Yes, our winters can be long and cold, but I can't see myself living anywhere else. The critics will always be talking nonsense about how the gay community will destroy life as we know it. Their problem is, there's always been gay people and no one's life is affected one way or the other unless they choose to believe things that aren't happening. Frankly, what I find somewhat amusing is the "religious" folks minds go directly to picturing what's going on in someone's bedroom. I don't know about most of you, but when I see couples, straight or gay, that thought never crosses my mind!

[Bruce Wilson - Huffpost Blogger]

"Frankly, what I find somewhat amusing is the "religious" folks minds go directly to picturing what's going on in someone's bedroom. I don't know about most of you, but when I see couples, straight or gay, that thought never crosses my mind!" - The word that comes to my mind, for this fixation on what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes or bedrooms, is 'prurient'.

Prurient : "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire.

[cathyfc]

You are exactly right, I wonder if they do the same thing with the rest of us are they imagining my sex life when I walk in the room holding hands with my better half??

[LMPE]

I predict that within a generation or two, the anti-gay nut-jobs will have died out.

[Infostream]

I'm glad the stats in MA look so good, but overall I think we have to stop falling for the haters ploy to focus on marriage. They selected this issue as a wedge because many can still rationalize "I'm for gay rights but marriage should be for men and woman", it was hilarious to me how bonkers liberals went over that beauty contestant saying that, when that is Obama's exact same stated official position.

We haven't made clear to those being duped the haters' real agenda, to keep something on the books that says there's something nasty and inferior about "gay". Here in CA when the Yes on Haters aired commercials saying prop8 would mandate teaching about gays in schools, the no on 8 side fell for it - the response on millions of $ of commercials: That's not true, we would never suggest school children be taught gay people exist!

Our own commercials verified verified that children need to be protected from even knowing gays exist - look at the yes on 8 logo -"protecting our children" is the slogan, and "our side" verified the idea they needed protecting.

We need to start talking about the real damage of homophobia like that a gay teen commits suicide every 5 hours, losing qualified anti-terrorism Arabic speakers because of DADT, the spread of HIV to woman by closeted bisexual men, etc.

[Bruce Wilson - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree with your points and I'd say that one way of addressing the issue would be to emphasize that similar tactics have been used, in recent American history, to target Hispanic, Asian, Black, and Native Americans.

[Infostream]

I ive in LA in a Black neighborhood, I voted on Prop 8 in a Black church that was vocally supporting prop 8 and telling their parishioners to vote yes, the walls were lined with posters warning of damnation if you don't live by the word of god, I wrote to the attorney general and the ACLU about it being blatant voter tampering and intimidation - no response.

Anyway I have had no luck comparing gay issues to race, even on HuffPo that comparison will prod otherwise gay-tolerant minority people into getting PO'd at gay rights activists. On the other hand when I mention the gay teen suicide rate, or that down-low unsafe sex has 1 out of 10 Black men in DC testing Poz and often infecting their str8 female partners, people first accuse me of making it up, and when I give them several sources they say "I'll have to think about this".

[CAMBEL]

One of the causes of gay teens committing suicide would be living in a land that sees them as less than, and where they can never grow up thinking that they will one day find somebody, get married, have that kind of life that they see in the movies etc... Legalizing Marriage isn't about falling for the "Haters" ploy, it is about ensuring that there are no federal and state laws discriminating that are still on the books. If these gay teens grow up meeting friends who have gay married parents they will know that no matter how tense things are at that point in time in their own household there is a light at the end of the tunnell.

[Infostream]

And if we said what you just said regarding gay marriage, instead of treating it as the sole issue, prop 8 would not have passed - you make my point.

[James Christianson]

it is now open season on stupid
i am soooo sick of placating "the crazies"
can't do it anymore. i'm out. i'm coming out right now.
what made me straight made others gay
we are all the same ~~ PEOPLE

ignorance is progressive enemy #1

[Liberal Angel]

I'm so damn sick and tired of hearing this hatemongering from these religious lunatics. They say we're a "threat" to "traditional marriage". Which tradition are they talking about? The "traditional" Mormon type Mr. Romney? Well they compromised on their fundamental belief in polygamy in order for Utah to join the Union. Are they talking about "traditional" Biblical marriage? You know. Polygamy, and the acceptance of concubinage, as well as women being in their place (property of their fathers). I haven't heard of any stories of bride prices and dowries being paid in the US for women, so they couldn't mean that. Since women aren't kept in their "place" anymore, "traditional" marrige has long been dead in America. But marriage was always about economics and status until relatively recently. Getting married because you love someone is new in historical terms. These hatemongers are always talking about their "rights" being infringed by gay marriage. How so? They aren't talking about actual constitutionally protected rights, they're talking about their imagined right to discrimate and prevent tax-paying citizens from executing our rights. They are forcing their backward, ill-informed religious beliefs on the rest of society. That is what's unconstitutional, not allowing us to exercize our rights. Civil marriage has nothing to do with their religion. I don't care about getting married in one of their houses of hate. I care about Article lV, and Amendments 1, 5, 10 and 14 not being applied to me and boyfriend. They can go to hell.

[SILVANUS]

If your marriage is threatened by someone else's happiness, you're in deep trouble.

And mentally ill.

[mandymarleyandme]

I am a fortunate individual to be surrounded by an eclectic group of friends, family, and colleagues with varying political and social views. During one of our frequent parlays about politicsI have asked a number of my more conservative compatriots to cite me any example of a heterosexual marriage that has been in any way adversely affected by a same sex marriage or the institution of same sex marriage. To my knowledge, there are still crickets chirping in the room in which I asked the question.

Fellow posters: has anyone met an individual or couple harmed by gay marriage? Anyone? Anyone? I still hear crickets chirping... Time for a new argument.

[Bruce Wilson - Huffpost Blogger]

Talent scouts from the Christian right may be scouring the landscape right now, looking for a "gay marriage ruined my straight marriage!" poster child. With a big enough PR budget, almost any hard sell can be made viable.

[mandymarleyandme]

I am a fortunate enough individual to be surrounded by an eclectic group of friends and family with varying political views. We often discuss politics, religion, and war with great joy and great fervor. In discussing gay marriage, I posed the following question to my more conservative compatriots, "Do you know one, single marriage that has been adversely affected as a result of a same sex couple being married?" As far as I know, the sound of chirping crickets can still be heard in that room. It seems that this study of MA marriage/divorce rates only confirms my suspicions.

Other posters out there...has anyone heard a story about a heterosexual marriage being destroyed by a same-sex marriage? Anyone? Anyone? I'm still hearing crickets...

[Aaror]

This is only the beginning, soon we will be forced to allow polygamy and open marriages and next thing you know the state will have no right whatsoever to regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes!!!
Why do we need illegal wiretaps if we can't arrest people for what they do in their own bedrooms???

[Badwater]

Exactly what stops anyone legally from having an open marriage now?

[insiderinfo]

I'm a supporter of gay marriage, but one issue in Massachusetts is that marriage rates are low - and hence divorce rates - because the state's divorce laws are medieval. Many people don't marry there because they don't want to end up a victim of these laws. You can become a victim if you yourself divorce but also if you marry someone who is divorced and pays (what is usually) lifetime alimony. If I marry my boyfriend, I may have to help him pay alimony to his ex. MA law forces people who were divorce decades before - and who both waived alimony - to pay alimony should one person find herself much later in life with "needs." A man divorced for 27 years and retired on a fixed income was forced to pay alimony to his ex- even though she'd waived alimony 27 years before. This is so she would not become "a public charge." The state believes that people should become private charges.
Most people who know anything about these laws in MA refuse to marry in the state.
In MA people are routinely thrown in jail routinely for inability to pay alimony, even after job loss and business failure. The state is a disgrace - though gay people can marry. I'm not sure gay couples en masse know what will happen if they divorce in Mass. To find out, visit Mass Alimony Reform (www.massalimonyreform.org) and 41 Horror Stories: http://www.massalimonyreform.org/horror_stories.html

[Reito Hikari]

Divorce rates are based on married couples... so the only thing that low marriage rates would affect is the trending. But even then, it seems it has been steady. (i.e. if there are only 2 married couples and no divorce... that's 0%. If one of them divorces, that goes up to 50%).

[silverball]

"though gay people can marry. I'm not sure gay couples en masse know what will happen if they divorce in Mass....."­...omg....­these poor souls know not what they do to themselves­.....yikes­!!!...is this the new argument against gay marriage???...if it is, you are reeaaallll­lly.graspi­ng at straws.....i doubt that many heterosexuals know either...in fact, like those dreaded gays, most just do it because they love someone...now, explain to me again why that is a bad thing and we shouldn't do it "en masse"....???.....

[insiderinfo]

I'm totally in favor of gay marriage. not sure how you construed my comments otherwise. I was simply pointing out the consequences of being married and divorced for anyone in MA. The law says: "The state of MA is a party in a marriage." It also says, the ex-spouse is a party in another marriage and the state can force a new spouse (ie new wife) to become responsible for an ex=spouse (ie husband's ex-wife). I would like to marry my partner of 10 years but won't as long as MA - and his ex-wife - have the power to run my life, drag me to court, force me to pay thousands in lawyer bill, and force me to turn over my financial documents. The state's monstrous divorce laws affect everyone.

[Bruce Wilson - Huffpost Blogger]

It sounds like Mike Huckabee might want to move to Massachusetts. He's for puritanical marriage laws ('covenant marriage) that make it harder to get divorced.

[ReesieKitty]

Ha! I've always said that if your marriage is SO WEAK that it is threatened in any way by what anyone else is doing, then you had better deal with your own problems. Any citizen of this country who pays taxes should enjoy ALL the benefits of being a citizen, including marrying any other adult person who is legally of age. Period.

[Aaror]

If your marriage would end if gay marriage was allowed, there are only two explanations: Either your spouse is secretly gay and would leave you for a gay marriage, or-well, the same thing, only substituting you for your spouse.
Which makes sense, most homophobes are gay...

[silverball]

...well...not to mention...."THE SKY IS FALLING.....THE SKY IS FALLING".......

[starrianna]

Gay marriage actually helps STABILIZE communities.

[Bruce Wilson - Huffpost Blogger]

And, Richard Florida's research suggests that acceptance of diversity is good for business (local economies) - areas that welcome gay-ness economically outperform bigoted areas.

[PlaceboStudman]

This sums it up best :

"This is only the beginning, if we allow this [ same sex marriage ] to happen we will, in effect, have destabilized the basic institution of our society, which is marriage between a man and a woman" - Brian Camenker, President of the Parents' Rights Coalition, as quoted by MassNews, March 2000

Now here's my revision

"This is only the beginning, if we allow this [ same sex marriage ] to happen we will, in effect, have destabilized the basic institution of our society, which is Organized Religion...and that can only be a good thing" - Placebostudman, commenter on HuffingtonPost, September 3rd, 2009

[charlot]

Amen to that (pun intended)!