And now for some breakfast-time abuse of statistics:
Nathan Johnson mentions that fewer South Dakotans are getting married while more are getting divorced. According to the South Department of Health 2009 Vital Statistics Report, in 2006, there were 6303 marriages in our fair state. In 2009, there were only 5887.
Over the same period, South Dakota divorces increased from 2465 to 2686.
From 2006 to 2009, the number of marriages went down faster in South Dakota than nationwide. South Dakota's divorce rate climbed while the national divorce rate continued its three-decade downward trend. In 2009, South Dakota's divorce rate surpassed the national average for the first time in 30 years.
Why do I compare 2009 with 2006? In 2006, South Dakota voters amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
So we ban same-sex unions in order to protect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage... and then South Dakota's heterosexuals get married less and overturn marriages more.
Meanwhile...
Massachusetts couples are divorcing less than couples in any other state. That's right, according to the most complete statistics available, the nation's lowest divorce rate is to be found at the epicenter of gay marriage. In contrast, the highest divorce rate (over three times the rate in Massachusetts) is found in Nevada, a state which reacted to marriages like mine by passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Other titillating contrasts exist: Iowa, corn-fed vanguard of same-sex marriage in the Midwest, has the second lowest state divorce rate in the country, coming in at less than half the rate of Arkansas, which has the second-highest rate of divorce, despite the fact that its resident same-sex partners not only cannot marry but cannot adopt children together [David Valdes Greenwood, "Making Marriage Cool Again: Divorce Rates and the Real Effect of Same-Sex Marriage," Huffington Post, 2011.05.17].
Astute readers are already shouting that correlation does not equal causation. Nothing above proves that legalizing gay marriage gets more people to marry and fewer to divorce.
But the next time someone tells you banning gay marriage is about protecting "real" "Christian" man-woman bonds, ask her to explain why God-fearing (and homosexual-fearing) South Dakota has a declining marriage rate and now higher-than-average divorce rate.
Maybe your question and the trends are as these numbers seem to suggest. And maybe they aren't.
The raw numbers you use need three filters to be applied to them to see if they are saying what you assert.
First, the impact on aging of our population. This has a doubling effect on both the number of divorces relative to marriages as well as the number of marriages because you are pushing a greater percentage into the "prime" divorce years and out of the "prime" marriage years. I don't have time to look it up but I think SD is in the top 10 of aging population with the biggest mitigating on our aging being most of youth is coming from the reservation's birth rate.
Second, the impact of the delaying in the age when couples get married. This morning on the radio I heard a blurb about how the average age of newlyweds was at its highest level in decades and had the largest 10 year jump every measured.
Third, I don't know if this is statistically appropriate but it might be. Just haven't thought it thru. However, if there is a large difference in either the rate of marriage or average age on the reservation, there might be a statistical reason to filter the reservation numbers because of the known extraordinary impact of extreme poverty on marriage stability.
Together, using appropriate statistical filtering, the numbers might not be as you assert. Or they might be.
If they are not and work against your thesis, I for one would not claim it a victory for those who wanted the gay marriage ban. If the properly statistically adjusted numbers still do support your thesis, I wouldn't consider it a victory for those who oppose the gay marriage ban. As you said above, astute readers understand this is an attempt to link apples and oranges.
So, why do those who oppose the gay marriage ban have to explain your last point? Doesn't make sense. Another example of someone looking for "facts" to make a point regardless of relevance.
Sometimes those spouting their Christian values are the most judgmental and hypocritical. I don't think it's what Jesus taught.
To add to Pam's comment, sometimes those spouting their atheistic/agnostic/hedonistic values are the most judgmental and hypocritical. I don't think that is what John Lennon taught.
I'm pretty sure the weakness to gossip, be judgmental and hypocritical is not a weakness exclusive to Christians. It is a pretty universal weakness.
Can't we just let GOD decide at the END, I get more frustrated daily on why this is even debated, it is NOT between "christians" and "gays" it is between "people" and "God" and I believe God makes you just the way he wants you to be, and I REFUSE to judge another person based on ANYTHING, creed, color, religion, OR sexual orientation. I think this country needs to deal with issues that truly affect the people as a whole and stop this nonsense of spreading hate and judgement.....People...focus on the economy, the wars, the deficits.....thos are things you SHOULD worry about, not someone elses "soul" worry about you own!!!!! Thou shalt not Judge.....love thy neighbor....no where in the bible or scripture have I EVER seen......vilify gay people......STOP THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!! Love thy neighbor, gay people are no different than heterosexual people, they are successful, bright, college educated, and down right some of the nicest people I have ever met. Jesus does NOT want us going around JUDGING EACH OTHER, of THAT I am sure!!!!
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi
Love it Shelly!!
Hrm... linky to the datasets for Massachussetts & Iowa?
I'm curious what correlations can and cannot be parsed out. For instance, without unique identifiers (i.e. the ability to track individuals), we cannot ascertain whether divorce or marriage is increasing/decreasing amongst certain demographics. Since the Census dept. isn't going to give raw data, we pretty much need to ask for a breakdown of demographics - how many "religious" self identifiers vs "non-religious" self-identifiers are marrying/divorcing? Is there a trend? Are Godless heathens divorcing less? Are homosexuals propping up the declining divorce #s? Are we still experiencing the honeymoon period for gay marriage? Perhaps in the next decade, we'll see trends normalize for homosexual and heterosexual unions... hard to say.
My hypothesis is that one's faith or sexual orientation has less of an impact on divorce rates than age at marriage, socio-economic status, employment, and health.
2009 divorce rates by state, from the CDC:
--Massachusetts: 2.2 per 1000 population.
--Iowa: 2.4
--South Dakota: 3.3
Thanks.
Difference of Means test coming up :)
Hrm... just looking at the data you provided (no stat analysis), I'm not sure I see anything that convinces me to look deeper, Cory.
Connecticut has had same sex marriage (SSM) since 2008 - notice that divorce rates have been pretty flat for the past 20 years. 2008 saw a small increase, but I bet that's more due to the recession than opening up marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Iowa approved SSM in 2009, so we don't have great data to compare. However, divorce rates have been steadily declining (3.9 in 1990, 2.4 in 2009). Again, something other than SSM is the culprit. There was a very slightly steeper decline between 2002-2003 than 2008-2009.
Massachussetts could be interesting - SSM started in 2004 and is still active. 1999-2003 = avg 2.5 per 1000. 2004-2008 = avg 2.2 per 1000. So ~at most~ SSM could account for 0.3 fewer divorces per 1000 people, though there are a lot of variables to consider going into those years.
Ideally, we get hold of divorce rates of heterosexual couples and homosexual couples and compare those.
Hey, look at our examples from the article:
Nevada: 1990 saw 11.4 per 1000 divorces. It plummeted to 6.7 in 2009. That's a pretty big net change, even if they still are (and were) triple that of Iowa.
Arkansas: 1990 saw 6.9, while 2009 saw 5.7. Pretty flat line.
So Nevada seems to be figuring out what it takes to make marriages work, whereas Arkansas is in a bit of a rut. Or maybe it's just an influx of retirees in Nevada, who aren't likely to divorce?
South Dakota's rate may be up from 2008, but it's still below our 1995 high of 3.9. We're pretty flatlined, too.