Video: The sanctity of Rachel
So whats the divorce rate in Texas, Utah and other gay hati... 'traditional values defending' states?
Posted by: penguinsaur | Sep 4, 2009 10:33:15 AM
How very interesting. I suspect that throughout the core from Boston down through Hartford you have a lower divorce rate.
Why? Simple, the cities in between (Boston, Worcester, Providence, Warwick, Hartford) have local Universities in them.
People get their education and put off marrying. When they do marry they're more financially secure. Hence a lower divorce rate.
Posted by: Tony P | Sep 4, 2009 10:57:58 AM
Yes, buy why would it be lower in 2008 that in 2003 for those reasons Tony?
Posted by: LOrion | Sep 4, 2009 1:33:42 PM
You're right, the Northeast as a whole perennially has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, whereas the more socially conservative South has one of the highest rates of both divorce and teenage pregnancy. And I think the reason for it is largely what you stated: More education correlate with more stable home lives. It also, as it happens, leads to more knowledge and a broader worldview, which in turn tends to lead to more progressive thinking.
So while marriage equality doesn't necessarily cause lower divorce rates, there is a correlation between the two. Even more important, the fact that the first state to grant same-sex couples full marriage rights also has the nation's lowest divorce rate is the strongest repudiation I can think of to claims that allowing gay couples to marry "devalues" the sanctity of marriage.
Posted by: Rachel Snyder | Sep 4, 2009 2:34:56 PM
Uh, Rachel, 1940 isn't pre-world war II, World war II started in 1939. We realize you think nothing is important unless the U.S. is involved but that doesn't change reality.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | Sep 4, 2009 4:58:24 PM
Priya Lynn, your point is?? That the divorce rates in Mass have dropped back to the levels where they were in 1940 (which is technically before we entered WWII) is the important fact here. I don't get your aggressive "doesn't change reality" argument. Making your stupid point doesn't change reality either.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 4, 2009 9:04:11 PM
Oh yes, that moron obviously thinks the world was at peace until pearl harbor, nope, cant be that when giving a statistic for americans she judges it by when america entered the war, since it doesnt really affect any marriages in America if Europeans and Asians are killing each other.
Posted by: penguinsaur | Sep 4, 2009 9:15:17 PM
Dick, if you don't get the point that 1940 isn't pre-world war II as Rachel claimed, I can't help you.
Penqunsaur, if Rachel wanted to say divorce rates hadn't been this low since before the U.S. entered world war II, that's what she should have said. As it was she just sounds like ignorant and arrogant.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | Sep 7, 2009 12:26:08 AMcomments powered by Disqus