Red States Higher in Divorce Than Blue States

[Pendragon]

Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Nevada, ranked at the top for divorces, while Utah, Wyoming and Arkansas – which had the highest marriage rates – were also higher than average in marital breakups. New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York ranked among the lowest in divorces.

North Dakota ranked among the top states in marriages while posting lower than average divorce rates.

The Census Bureau report attributed the lower rates of divorce in the Northeast in part to delayed marriage in those places, which decreased the likelihood of marital discord down the road.

"Surprisingly, the South and West, which we think of as more socially conservative, have higher rates of divorce than does the supposedly liberal East," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "The reason is that young adults in the South and West tend to have less education and marry earlier, both of which lead to a higher risk of divorce."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/united-states-divorce-rat_n_935938.html

I expected that the [family value] states have the highest divorce rates. More hypocrisy from the right.

[Pendragon]

Also, of the four states with the lowest divorce rates, three allow gay marriage. So maybe the gays aren't destroying the traditional family after all?

[Pendragon]

No one wants to defend marriage?

[wingrider]

after being married for 41 years I have come to the conclusion that divorce is mostly caused by marriage

[MMC]

The first-of-its-kind analysis by the Census Bureau, released Thursday, also finds that people are waiting longer before marrying for the first time. In particular, the percentage of women who wed as teenagers has dropped precipitously since 1970, while many men are postponing marriage past their college-age years.

A first of it's kind Analysis.....
By region, the South and West had the most marriages, with rates of roughly 19 per 1,000. But they also led in divorces, each at about 10 per 1,000.

As a whole, marriages are now at a record low, with just 52 percent of adults 18 and over saying they were joined in wedlock, compared with 57 percent in 2000, according to census data released last September. The never-married included 46.3 percent of young adults 25-34 – the first time the share of never-married young adults exceeded those who were married, 44.9 percent, with the rest being divorced or widowed.

Marriages have been declining for years due to rising divorce, more unmarried couples living together and increased job prospects for women. But analysts say younger people also may now be increasingly choosing to delay marriage as they struggle to find work and resist making long-term commitments in the recent recession.

The census analysis is based on 2009 data from the American Community Survey, which sampled 3 million households. It is the first to describe detailed information on marriages and divorces from this survey after the National Center for Health Statistics stopped collecting such data in 1996.

Seems The Census Bureau is just one study......as the population would be greater in the North. it is not surprising that Marriages would drop off around Urban Cities. Which was not taken seriously in this report. For I am sure if it was broken down by urban and rural settings then we would have some different numbers.

Posted by: Pendragon
Also, of the four states with the lowest divorce rates, three allow gay marriage. So maybe the gays aren't destroying the traditional family after all?

Try telling that to the kid that has to run around telling all that he has 3 mommies.....or to the kid that knows it takes a man and a woman to make a baby!

[MMC]

What no Takers on One Report about such..... >:( :D

[Pendragon]

The kid that has three mommies? What are you talking about? Also maybe you've noticed that in large families children bear some of the responsibility of child rearing.

As such, it is better for the children to have more people loving them and taking care of them than not.

Why would you want to deprive a child of love?

News flash for you: many children in this country are growing up with only one parent.

Two moms or two dads who love that kid are worth a lot more than backwards thinking about how an untraditional environment is going to cause them some harm.

[MMC]

The kid that has three mommies? What are you talking about? Also maybe you've noticed that in large families children bear some of the responsibility of child rearing.

As such, it is better for the children to have more people loving them and taking care of them than not.

Why would you want to deprive a child of love?

News flash for you: many children in this country are growing up with only one parent.

Two moms or two dads who love that kid are worth a lot more than backwards thinking about how an untraditional environment is going to cause them some harm.


Newsflash.....I grew-up with one parent and was put out on the streets. Grew up on the streets so save the speech on love. Yeah it was called tuff love. Nothing tradional about it.

3 mommies..... yeah,what don't you get about two gay women that divorce, then one marries again. Also you shied away from the piece on kids that know it takes a man and a woman to create another human.....or baby in this case.

[Pendragon]

So a homosexual couple getting divorced and remarried is not OK, but if heterosexuals do that it is fine?

How hypocritical. ::)

The point is a child needs two parents who love him or her.

Also, divorce is hard on any child. It doesn't matter if the parents are heterosexual or homosexual.

Even though you think you turned out OK, don't you think it would have been easier with two parents?

Don't you think a lot of kids today would have it better with two parents?

I hear the Republicans complaining about all the welfare moms but they are deliberately preventing families from being formed.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Conley]

Hey, MMC doesn't think he turned out ok, he KNOWS he turned out ok! >:( :-*

[Conley]

and of course no one is saying that single parent homes are the ideal...

[Pendragon]

It was not my intent to cause any offense.

I think very highly of Our Critic.

[MMC]

So a homosexual couple getting divorced and remarried is not OK, but if heterosexuals do that it is fine?

How hypocritical. ::)

The point is a child needs two parents who love him or her.

Also, divorce is hard on any child. It doesn't matter if the parents are heterosexual or homosexual.

Even though you think you turned out OK, don't you think it would have been easier with two parents?

Don't you think a lot of kids today would have it better with two parents?

I hear the Republicans complaining about all the welfare moms but they are deliberately preventing families from being formed.

Hypocrisy at its finest.


Did I say if heterosexuals get divorced and remarried that it is fine. No I stated what does the socio-mindset tell that child. Hence the question concerning 3 so called mommies. Again what do you tell those children that know it takes a man and a woman to make another human. What you going to lie to them? It is like D stated no where in history up until this moment in time has there been any question as to marriage. Thats with the religions of today, and those that have come and gone. Yet knowing that such a lifestyle is not the norm by the Majority of the people on this planet. All are suppose to make appeasement to a small minority. Because a select few want to transform the Norm.

Sorry The one thing I can agree with Obama on is gay marriage. He is against it as well. Marriage is an institution dedicated solely in bringing and bridging the gap between the two separate sexes. What gap exists between two people of the same sex. Physiological and chemically wise?

[Mister D]

IMO, Obama is probably for gay marriage. He's an utterly unprincipled politician. He wants to get elected.

Gay marriage is inane and that fact has nothing to do with my own feelings toward homosexuals.

[Conley]

If in fact Obama is against gay marriage then I think he kept that fact to himself during his whole hopey changey campaign for POTUS. It's hard to tell what he really believes in when he seemingly stands for nothing.

[Mister D]

If in fact Obama is against gay marriage then I think he kept that fact to himself during his whole hopey changey campaign for POTUS. It's hard to tell what he really believes in when he seemingly stands for nothing.


In his heart of hearts I think he is for it like I said but he will be for whatever he thinks will help keep him in office. Mind you, I don't mean to single out BO. Far too many of our politicians are like this but I'm not sure we can do anything about that.

[Pendragon]

So a homosexual couple getting divorced and remarried is not OK, but if heterosexuals do that it is fine?

How hypocritical. ::)

The point is a child needs two parents who love him or her.

Also, divorce is hard on any child. It doesn't matter if the parents are heterosexual or homosexual.

Even though you think you turned out OK, don't you think it would have been easier with two parents?

Don't you think a lot of kids today would have it better with two parents?

I hear the Republicans complaining about all the welfare moms but they are deliberately preventing families from being formed.

Hypocrisy at its finest.


Did I say if heterosexuals get divorced and remarried that it is fine. No I stated what does the socio-mindset tell that child. Hence the question concerning 3 so called mommies. Again what do you tell those children that know it takes a man and a woman to make another human. What you going to lie to them? It is like D stated no where in history up until this moment in time has there been any question as to marriage. Thats with the religions of today, and those that have come and gone. Yet knowing that such a lifestyle is not the norm by the Majority of the people on this planet. All are suppose to make appeasement to a small minority. Because a select few want to transform the Norm.

Sorry The one thing I can agree with Obama on is gay marriage. He is against it as well. Marriage is an institution dedicated solely in bringing and bridging the gap between the two separate sexes. What gap exists between two people of the same sex. Physiological and chemically wise?


You seem incapable of making a substantive argument.

A young child doesn't need to know about sex. Children would not be flummoxed by having two mommies. Just as when they first encounter a person of a different appearance (note I did not say race) et cetera. Children experience new things every day.

There is no reason to deny a child's place in this world just because it offends your sensabilities.

There are 'gaps' between all of us. We come into this world alone. We leave it alone. It's what we do while we're here that matters.

Lastly just because something has been done a certain way for a long period of time does not mean it must always be so.

It is called progress. For decades African Americans were discriminated against. Was the argument, "This is how it has always been" a valid one for continuing such practices? Of course not. The same holds true for anti-homosexual activity.

[Mister D]

The argument, sir, is for gay radicals to make. Why should our laws and customs be changed to suit a tiny minority's desire for social acceptance?

[Pendragon]

There is nothing radical about marriage.

[Mister D]

There is nothing radical about marriage.


Ah, but there is something quite radical about insisting we recognize same sex unions as the equivalent of traditional couplings. I'll never see Bob and Steve as a union like my mother and father no matter how much "diversity" propaganda this government throws at me.

[MMC]

So a homosexual couple getting divorced and remarried is not OK, but if heterosexuals do that it is fine?

How hypocritical. ::)

The point is a child needs two parents who love him or her.

Also, divorce is hard on any child. It doesn't matter if the parents are heterosexual or homosexual.

Even though you think you turned out OK, don't you think it would have been easier with two parents?

Don't you think a lot of kids today would have it better with two parents?

I hear the Republicans complaining about all the welfare moms but they are deliberately preventing families from being formed.

Hypocrisy at its finest.


Did I say if heterosexuals get divorced and remarried that it is fine. No I stated what does the socio-mindset tell that child. Hence the question concerning 3 so called mommies. Again what do you tell those children that know it takes a man and a woman to make another human. What you going to lie to them? It is like D stated no where in history up until this moment in time has there been any question as to marriage. Thats with the religions of today, and those that have come and gone. Yet knowing that such a lifestyle is not the norm by the Majority of the people on this planet. All are suppose to make appeasement to a small minority. Because a select few want to transform the Norm.

Sorry The one thing I can agree with Obama on is gay marriage. He is against it as well. Marriage is an institution dedicated solely in bringing and bridging the gap between the two separate sexes. What gap exists between two people of the same sex. Physiological and chemically wise?


You seem incapable of making a substantive argument.

A young child doesn't need to know about sex. Children would not be flummoxed by having two mommies. Just as when they first encounter a person of a different appearance (note I did not say race) et cetera. Children experience new things every day.

There is no reason to deny a child's place in this world just because it offends your sensabilities.

There are 'gaps' between all of us. We come into this world alone. We leave it alone. It's what we do while we're here that matters.

Lastly just because something has been done a certain way for a long period of time does not mean it must always be so.

It is called progress. For decades African Americans were discriminated against. Was the argument, "This is how it has always been" a valid one for continuing such practices? Of course not. The same holds true for anti-homosexual activity.


A young child doesn't need to know about sex.....yet this does not help kids who are 7-8yrs old. Even 5-6yr olds in urban setting are aware of sex at least in some form of generality.
No one is denying a child's place in the world. But you cannot lie to the child. It takes a man and a woman to create another human being. So eventually a child will ask wheres mom or dad.

Just because the US got stupid and allowed this matter to be taken into politics and government does not make it right. Again a very small minority has attempted to cause this to become a rights movement. Impose their will over the majority people.

The real truth is no one is stopping any that are gay from living the type of lifestyle they want to. No one was from the get go. Most of the US population that are conservative and or religious never had any problem with civil unions. Now I agree that certain rights should be given to those that are into civil unions. Such as being in a hospital and being with their loved one and for the purposes of legal matters such as beneficiaries. Funeral rites etc etc.

There is no gaps between two of the same sex. Not physiologically nor chemically.

Also the differences with african americans was that those people as a majority were being treated unfairly. Althought technically such was based off righteousness. Which was a cause to become a rights movement because an entire race of people were being treated unfairly and unequally.

This is not progress to give into a small minority and then attack the institution of marriage because it is designed to be an instituiton that bridges the gap between two separate sexes of the same species.

If you would like to have a discussion concerning gay marriage that is fine. But with this article it was based on one study done by the census bureau and even in their article they contribute the downfall of marriage. Due to some other specific findings they discovered. Younger people waiting to get married. Women not marrying as they have entered the working field.

[Conley]

Well stated MMC. You make a lot of good points. I guess I don't feel strongly one way or another about gay marriage, but what you say makes sense. I also feel that there is hardly any comparison to the black civil rights movement.

[Conley]

I shouldn't be spending time on CNN but I saw this...backs up what LoVe said, marriage causes divorce ;D

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/26/overheard-on-cnn-com-marriage-causes-divorce/

I guess Frank Burns from MASH deserves the credit ;D

[Pendragon]

So a homosexual couple getting divorced and remarried is not OK, but if heterosexuals do that it is fine?

How hypocritical. ::)

The point is a child needs two parents who love him or her.

Also, divorce is hard on any child. It doesn't matter if the parents are heterosexual or homosexual.

Even though you think you turned out OK, don't you think it would have been easier with two parents?

Don't you think a lot of kids today would have it better with two parents?

I hear the Republicans complaining about all the welfare moms but they are deliberately preventing families from being formed.

Hypocrisy at its finest.


Did I say if heterosexuals get divorced and remarried that it is fine. No I stated what does the socio-mindset tell that child. Hence the question concerning 3 so called mommies. Again what do you tell those children that know it takes a man and a woman to make another human. What you going to lie to them? It is like D stated no where in history up until this moment in time has there been any question as to marriage. Thats with the religions of today, and those that have come and gone. Yet knowing that such a lifestyle is not the norm by the Majority of the people on this planet. All are suppose to make appeasement to a small minority. Because a select few want to transform the Norm.

Sorry The one thing I can agree with Obama on is gay marriage. He is against it as well. Marriage is an institution dedicated solely in bringing and bridging the gap between the two separate sexes. What gap exists between two people of the same sex. Physiological and chemically wise?


You seem incapable of making a substantive argument.

A young child doesn't need to know about sex. Children would not be flummoxed by having two mommies. Just as when they first encounter a person of a different appearance (note I did not say race) et cetera. Children experience new things every day.

There is no reason to deny a child's place in this world just because it offends your sensabilities.

There are 'gaps' between all of us. We come into this world alone. We leave it alone. It's what we do while we're here that matters.

Lastly just because something has been done a certain way for a long period of time does not mean it must always be so.

It is called progress. For decades African Americans were discriminated against. Was the argument, "This is how it has always been" a valid one for continuing such practices? Of course not. The same holds true for anti-homosexual activity.


A young child doesn't need to know about sex.....yet this does not help kids who are 7-8yrs old. Even 5-6yr olds in urban setting are aware of sex at least in some form of generality.
No one is denying a child's place in the world. But you cannot lie to the child. It takes a man and a woman to create another human being. So eventually a child will ask wheres mom or dad.

Now I agree that certain rights should be given to those that are into civil unions. Such as being in a hospital and being with their loved one and for the purposes of legal matters such as beneficiaries. Funeral rites etc etc.

There is no gaps between two of the same sex. Not physiologically nor chemically.


Every adopted child and family has to answer the question "Where is Mom?" or "Where is Dad?" That is not a valid reason to deny a child a loving home and a family. Those children need love more than anyone.

Now we certainly agree that more rights should be given to those having civil unions, at the very least access in hospitals and legal issues. Additionally they should be able to get the same benefits as heterosexual couples in job benefits and tax breaks.

I don't know what you mean by saying there are no gaps physiologically nor chemically. Would you care to expand on that somewhat?

Lastly I ask you this:

Are you in favor or against the right for a homosexual couple to adopt a child? Why or why not? Think carefully, for your answer will reveal much about yourself.

[Mister D]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?

[Conley]

I'd be fine with gay adoption, but they would need to meet the same criteria as straight couples plus somehow be able to prove they have been together and will be together for a long time. I'm not sure how that can be done. Do all states allow civil unions? If they had been 'united' for a while that would be a good sign.

[wingrider]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO

[Mister D]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It was rhetorical. ;)

[Pendragon]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It seems I am the only one being attacked personally.

I still await all of your replies.

Conlette I appreciate the effort, though by saying as much you are truly saying nothing at all.

[Mister D]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It seems I am the only one being attacked personally.

I still await all of your replies.

Conlette I appreciate the effort, though by saying as much you are truly saying nothing at all.


Our replies to what?

[Pendragon]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It seems I am the only one being attacked personally.

I still await all of your replies.

Conlette I appreciate the effort, though by saying as much you are truly saying nothing at all.


Our replies to what?


I am awaiting replies to the question I posed.

For your review I will post it again.

Are you in favor or against the right for a homosexual couple to adopt a child? Why or why not?

I notice you did reply at one point however at some later time decided to return and edit your words more carefully.

[Mister D]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It seems I am the only one being attacked personally.

I still await all of your replies.

Conlette I appreciate the effort, though by saying as much you are truly saying nothing at all.


Our replies to what?


I am awaiting replies to the question I posed.

For your review I will post it again.

Are you in favor or against the right for a homosexual couple to adopt a child? Why or why not?

I notice you did reply at one point however at some later time decided to return and edit your words more carefully.


More editing conspiracy theories, Pen? :D :D Grow up.

What right do homosexuals have to adopt children? Is that like their right to marry (i.e. non-existent)?

[Conley]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It seems I am the only one being attacked personally.

I still await all of your replies.

Conlette I appreciate the effort, though by saying as much you are truly saying nothing at all.


Hey, I did answer the question...glad you appreciate it though I'm not sure you do. :-*

[Pendragon]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It seems I am the only one being attacked personally.

I still await all of your replies.

Conlette I appreciate the effort, though by saying as much you are truly saying nothing at all.


Our replies to what?


I am awaiting replies to the question I posed.

For your review I will post it again.

Are you in favor or against the right for a homosexual couple to adopt a child? Why or why not?

I notice you did reply at one point however at some later time decided to return and edit your words more carefully.


More editing conspiracy theories, Pen? :D :D Grow up.

What right do homosexuals have to adopt children? Is that like their right to marry (i.e. non-existent)?


So your answer is no?

I could have guessed as much.

It is a sad commentary on how backwards American society has become.

[Mister D]

Will it? Or will your reaction just reveal your own preconceptions ans prejudices? That is, if you don;t agree with me you must be morally bankrupt. It's tiresome. Can liberals actually argue their point of view instead of attacking their opponents personally?


short answer... NO


It seems I am the only one being attacked personally.

I still await all of your replies.

Conlette I appreciate the effort, though by saying as much you are truly saying nothing at all.


Our replies to what?


I am awaiting replies to the question I posed.

For your review I will post it again.

Are you in favor or against the right for a homosexual couple to adopt a child? Why or why not?

I notice you did reply at one point however at some later time decided to return and edit your words more carefully.


More editing conspiracy theories, Pen? :D :D Grow up.

What right do homosexuals have to adopt children? Is that like their right to marry (i.e. non-existent)?


So your answer is no?

I could have guessed as much.

It is a sad commentary on how backwards American society has become.


What right do homosexuals have to adopt children? ;D

[Pendragon]

The same right as any other couple? The same right as any individual? Or is that too much?

For the record, not that it matters but I am not a homosexual. I merely feel the need to stand up and speak out for those oppressed. Would that more would follow such a path. Silence is the ally of bigotry!

[MMC]

Pen no one was saying any is denying a child loving home. When throwing up inferences or innuendoes onto others does not help the liberal mindset.

First you stated something about whether a child was being denied a loving home. No one else denied the fact that all children need a loving home. Such is a general statement and not used in any Specific sense. Yet you try to use to put onto someone.

Just like your statement to CL and that what he told you was about nothing. I call BS. He stated he was fine with Gay People adopting if the people could prove they have been together. Then he said it was a good sign if they had been together for some time. The same thing for heterosexuals. As it is now. To Adopt even a married couple must prove they have been together some time. They cannot just get married and say hey lets go adopt a kid.

I myself have no problem if gay people want to adopt a kid. It is still their responsibility to let that kid know. They are not his real Parents. That it takes a man and a woman to create another human being. It would also be their responsiblity to inform that kid when he got old enough what type of relationship that he is living with. What the societal Norm is.

Like I stated before if they want to do a study then do it the right way and try not to just use some generalities. Because if you break such down and then go by Urban and rural areas. Then the divorce rate would be higher in those who are suppose to be totally committed to marriage. Having a belief in marriage. As opposed to those who come from an area with a greater population almost doubling that of all who are married. Yet do not have a belief in marriage.

It has been statistcally shown thru divorce that homes without a father. The child is more likely to drop out of school, be prone to more acts of violence and have more issues with authoritarians that they must deal with in life. Also note psychologically they state these types of kids have even more issues with women. Now why do you think that is?