You know how sweet it is when you’ve got solid statistical evidence to back up your arguments? Well, here we go, fellow progressives. There is now concrete evidence that shows how wrong opponents of same-sex marriage have been.
One of the main arguments from those who oppose allowing same-sex marriage is that it would “destroy marriage,” or at least weaken it as an institution, leading to widespread divorces, polygamy, dogs marrying cats and what-have-you. WRONG. The National Center for Vital Statistics has new information about the divorce rates in all 50 states. So, guess which state has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Yes, it’s Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been allowed since 2004.
Not only has same-sex marriage not wrecked the institution of marriage in Massachusetts, the divorce rate there has gone down every year since 2004, until now it stands at 2.0 per thousand. Some perspective on those numbers: 2.0 per 1,000 was the annual divorce rate for the United States in 1940. In other words, five years after allowing same-sex marriages, Massachusetts’ divorce rate has dropped to the level of the U.S. more than a year before Pearl Harbor. Talk about old-time values! By comparison, North Carolina’s divorce rate is 4.0 per thousand. I’d say if NC is to have any hope of lowering its divorce rate to decent levels, the General Assembly better hurry up and legalize gay marriage pronto.
This article appears in Aug 25 – Sep 1, 2009.
um–say WHAT???? You are certainly entitled to your oppinion, but your reasoning is quite lasking. Grooms correctly points out that: anti same sex groups claim that same sex marriage will threaten “real” marriage. In 5 years the dovrce rate has gone down. This shows (if nothing else id further examined) that NO correlation between same sex marriage and the destruction of marriage exists. And–you are against gay marriage because it will leead to Polygamy which you think is more natural—seriously—are you a kid yanking our chain? 8th Grade algebra should teach you some logic.
The heterosexuals’ lack of respect for traditional marriage is the root cause for the homosexual marriage explosion and the divorce explosion.
I am against gay marriage and civil unions. Both way wrong. But a sign of the times.
I would recommend you all take a look at this book, which clearly outlines how gay people are changed by access to marriage rights much more than we change marriage in any way, shape or form
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/141968/the_sky_isn't_falling:_it_turns_out_gay_marriage_has_not_destroyed_the_institution_for_heteros
Frank,
Almost no state has civil unions that grant anywhere near equal rights as marriages. Furthermore, the main issue with civil unions is this whole “separate but equal” thing we tangled with half a century ago. If you have two equal legal entities that do the same thing are truly equal, then give them the same name. Otherwise, there should be a reason why they aren’t equal.
Luke,
I’m pretty sure heterosexuals’ lack of respect for “traditional marriage” has nothing to do with gay people wanting to get married. The logical conclusion would be that gay people love each other and thus want to get married. Also, what is “traditional marriage?” Do you mean polygamy like the old school traditions or simply just where the woman basically becomes the man’s property?
What? Gays didn’t destroy marriage? Funny it hasn’t happened in Canada either and its been legal there since 2003. Those who oppose same-sex marriage do not have sound reasoning. It is all rooted in the gut…how I feel. Basically, they want two separate classes b/c they feel they are better than other class. Glad my generation is so far ahead in their thinking than the old folks. Gonna be legal US wide within the next ten years. Cheers haters.
Frank: “I am for civil unions but against gays using the Marriage label.”
Gays can already get married—in a church by a priest/minister/etc—right this very minute! It’s not about the word, it’s about the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are being denied.
“It will be only natural for Polygamists to demand their rights if gays can have marriage.”
No, you’ve got this wrong. There are very good reasons to avoid polygamy, reasons which have nothing to do with he gender(s) of the participants.
“I think Polygamy is more of a natural thing anyways.”
Huh? Natural by what standard? Gays have been around for as long as humans have existed as such, and occur naturally in most other species, as well. So you must be defining “natural” to mean something, well, unnatural!
Ignorance and bigotry aside, Francis, homosexuality most certainly is natural. It’s not exclusive to Homo sapiens; it’s been documented in many other species. If something occurs in nature, then it is, by definition, natural. You seem to have confused, “natural,” with, “for strictly reproductive purposes.” If that’s how you view marriage or a “natural” relationship, then what about a sterile man or woman? Are his/her marriage and sexual activity also “unnatural”?
You’re in no position to start accusing others of, “using poor logic,” when you cling to such an archaic, uninformed view of sexuality.
Even angry, single, lesbians that found anti-coupling support groups are forced to admit that children are better off in a traditional marriage.
[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200907/time-s-misleading-cover-story-marriage]