posted on November 8, 2004 07:13:32 AM new
RED STATE FAMILY VALUES
Instead of picking on gay people, those pushing for a Constitutional amendment seeking to protect the institution of marriage in America ought to call for the deannexation of the Bible Belt.
Writing in the Boston Globe, William V. D'Antonio, a visiting research professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.,offers this evidence:
The Associated Press, using data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people."
The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.
By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont…..
For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people from (Sen. John) Kerry's home state (of Massachusetts), along with their neighbors in the Northeast corridor, who live these values.
Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no children behind.
And they have been among the nation's leaders in promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes; these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to help insure a compassionate, humane society.
Family values are much more likely to be found in the states mistakenly called out-of-the-mainstream liberal.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 8, 2004 07:52:35 AM new
That's very interesting. Can you provide a link to the source? I'd like to pass this on to a few people I know.
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
-------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 8, 2004 11:43:53 AM new
" these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to help insure a compassionate, humane society. "
posted on November 8, 2004 11:23:54 PM new
Looking at the census figures the article refers to, it also appears that the Southern states mentioned have higher marriage rates...also, there is no correlative data re the ages of those who marry & when they marry in the respective states...Later marriages having lower divorce rates. Populations are not static. Florida, for instance, benefits (or suffers) from a significant migration from so-called low divorce states. What is the divorce rate in Florida for former Massachusets residents?
Then you have to consider where they are divorced, where the divorce is recorded..Ethnicity, immigrant divorce, etc.. would all have to be figured into the equation as well.
I have no particular ax to grind...but I am deeply suspicious of "the facts" when they are selectively trumpeted to forward any particular agenda.
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
[ edited by pandorasbox on Nov 8, 2004 11:35 PM ]
What does this have to do with one man one woman getting married?
The good people of the US have spoken and your deviant lifestyle is unacceptable.... we do thank you though for getting the people out to vote... President Bush thanks you...
They are also allowed to get divorced...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 9, 2004 06:25:06 AM newWhat does this have to do with one man one woman getting married?
Nothing, but it has to do with the "high moral values" that every one in the South is suppose to believe in. They wantto keep preaching about values and family, but yet it is those in the South that have the highest divorce rates. How does divorce live up to high moral values?
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 9, 2004 06:29:57 AM newWhat is the divorce rate in Florida for former Massachusetts residents? Then you have to consider where they are divorced, where the divorce is recorded..Ethnicity, immigrant divorce, etc.. would all have to be figured into the equation as well. I have no particular ax to grind...but I am deeply suspicious of "the facts" when they are selectively trumpeted to forward any particular agenda.
Again it doesn't matter where the divorce is recorded, the fact remains that divorce is not suppose to occur. When two people get married they are suppose to be married for life. Furthermore, if those in the South are as deeply religious as they say they are, they would not be getting divorced since this brings down the "family values" they preaching about and believe lead to the downfall of society.
These people need to wake up and realize divorce is one of the issues that is leading to America having such low "family values"
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
"Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
[ edited by logansdad on Nov 9, 2004 01:14 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2004 09:23:54 AM new
"Again it doesn't matter where the divorce is recorded, the fact remains that divorce is not suppose to occur. When two people get married they are suppose to be married for life."
It does matter statistically. Someone married in Massachusettes who subsequently divorces in Florida effects the data. Nevada divorces would effect the overall picture as well.
If values are assumed to be instilled by geography and thus political predelictions then it directly applies to the author's premise. It does matter where the divorce is recorded insofar as the "where" is central to his argument.
Social statistics in support of political arguments are worthless unless they are rigorously qualified. In this instance there remains a whole battery of qualifiers before any reasonable assumptions can be made.
Divorce is, I believe, fundamentally harmful.
So too is the urge to assume as fact that which is open to interpretation.
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
posted on November 9, 2004 09:31:44 AM new
I still beg to differ.
If a couple marries in Nevada in 1974. Lives there for five years and then moves to Arkansas. The couple is a resident of Arkansas for 25 years before they divorce in 2004.
Based on your argument, Nevada would be charged with the divorce. Why, the couple was a resident of Arkansas longer than they were a resident of Nevada?
You suggestion would be a statistical nightmare to keep track of. What about all those that were married outside of the US and then divorced while living in the US?
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 9, 2004 10:20:17 AM new
My point re Nevada is that its divorce rate is, I assume, higher because folks travel there from throughout the country for a "quickie divorce". Nevada's rate is thus inflated for reasons quite apart from the author's underlying premise.
" What about all those that were married outside of the US and then divorced while living in the US?".
A good point and one that underscores my reasoning.
There are numerous qualifiers,such as yours, that go directly to the assumption that divorce rates as quoted are entirely reliable statements re the respective populations in any particular state.
"You suggestion would be a statistical nightmare to keep track of.."
I agree. However, if statistics are to be employed in social generalizations, shouldn't we expect that they be inclusive of all the pertinent data?
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
posted on November 9, 2004 10:27:36 AM new
Living with a drunk who beats you is ALSO fundamentally harmful.
Living your life in misery because of a decision you made when you were eighteen is fundamentally harmful ( and completely stupid).
Living with someone who abuses and/or doesn't support your children is fundamentally harmful.
Living with someone when you'd both be happier apart is fundamentally harmful and stupid.
Marriage, while it has it's ups and downs, is not REALLY meant to be a grueling endurance test...I feel it was meant to be a loving, fundamentally happy experience.
OK...and assuming that divorce can be, at times, fundamentally good..then what is the author's point?
He implies that by virtue of a lower divorce rate, the blue states are exemplarary.
If divorce can be good then why should a higher divorce rate in and of itself be bad?
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
Your assumptions re reasons for divorce lump subjective and objective criteria together.
Physical abuse & neglect are objective and are dealt with statutorily. Divorce law has drifted into and is largely defined by subjective criteria. And the reason the law concerns itself with dealing with these subjective issues at all is because society's (and thus the law's) interest in marriage concerns property and the orderly transference of ownership. Ownership = taxes.
The notion of romantic love and happiness itself is a rather recent phenomenon. Historically, marriage is about contract and the distribution and control of wealth. That is why the idea of a child's welfare in a divorce has been so slow to evolve. Property is easy for the law. What is hard for the law is defining the subjective notion of the child's welfare. Precedent has partitioned the objective criteria of fiscal support from the notion of, in essence, the child's well being or happiness. The law sees clearly its interest in the fiscal but only begrudgingly involves itself in the welfare of the child. Thus we have the overall abysmal record of child welfare, foster care, etc.. The law will not lead as it is ill-equipped to define happiness.
Of all the revolutionary ideas posited by our founders, certainly "The pursuit of happiness" was the most extraordinary. So much so that having stated it, they did not explicitly provide for nor further define it statutorily.
That the state would involve itself at all in marriage demonstrates how elementally important is the funding of the public coffer.
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
[ edited by pandorasbox on Nov 9, 2004 12:16 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2004 11:58:39 AM new
Whatever that meandering blather was ???
The point I made is that NOT ALL DIVORCES ARE BAD THINGS!
If you're referring to the welfare of the children, yes, sometimes divorce can be hard on them and sometimes IT ISN'T.
Depends on the child , the indivdual circumstaneces, whether the parents act like adults or not.
If daddy is beating or raping his daughter she is BETTER OFF without him.....why is this so hard to understand?
If children grow up watching mom and dad go at it like barbarians with no love shown they are worse off than the parents who got their children out of those circumstances.
posted on November 9, 2004 12:13:02 PM new
Crow.. I think that meandering blather meant.....Just tell them that they'll get to ferfenate their epizeetus while they scrambulate their firtle and fraktilate everyone else's moisenflay. They'll have more fun than the time a turtle got trapped in Aunt Myrtle's girdle!
posted on November 9, 2004 01:00:35 PM new
My apologies Kraft...I forgot where I was.
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
posted on November 9, 2004 01:09:46 PM new
Well, now... that comment ruined your good record. Before, I was impressed that you were able to deliver your message without an insult.
posted on November 9, 2004 01:29:57 PM newThere are numerous qualifiers,such as yours, that go directly to the assumption that divorce rates as quoted are entirely reliable statements re the respective populations in any particular state
You could say the same about the reasons for getting married. However when you think about divorce are there really that many reason why a divorce occurs - infidelity, lack of communication, no longer in love. Would you agree these reasons are more important than were a person was originally married?
I believe the point the author of article was trying to make was that since the South claims to be very religious and for high family values, it was very ironic that the South had very high divorce rates compared to other parts of the country where they were not as religious. If the South was high on moral values as they say they are, then you would expect the divorce rate to be lower.
I feel marriage should be a one time event. If you have one chance to get it right. If you are not sure about the person you are going to spend the rest of your life with, then don't get married. If you do get married and it doesn't work out, then you are forever stuck as a married couple until one person dies. (you can separate and not live in the same house, but in the eyes of the law you will still be "married".
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 9, 2004 01:35:03 PM new
Helen...I'll try to be more civil
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
posted on November 9, 2004 02:09:52 PM new
It's easy to find statistics on Divorce as they are widely publized. Since "Marriage" within the gay population is illegal there are no statistics for them. But, saying that I have seen many a gay couple together for short times and then moving on. So you can't judge by your life style.
"America ought to call for the deannexation of the Bible Belt."
Yes it is easy to say that in here when their are so many posters that don't believe in religion but that doesn't mean that this is the majority.
As I was listening to the DNC on Cspan today, they mentioned that two more states were banning gay marriages. So I think that will be 13 - 14.
It was also very interesting in how they broke the election down and how the republicans were taking a hold in Congress and how they project the 2008 election. They said they needed to find a candidate that doesn't say one thing one day and then the next something else. If cspan reruns this it will be an eye opener to the Democrats and what they have to do is get their act together for 2008 or they will lose this one also.
"You could say the same about the reasons for getting married. However when you think about divorce are there really that many reason why a divorce occurs - infidelity, lack of communication, no longer in love. Would you agree these reasons are more important than were a person was originally married? "
My position has to do with the author's premise and his use of statistics. His point revolves around where the divorce occurs. He further implies that there is a cultural aspect.
This would only be true if population's were static(everyone sampled grew up, married and/or divorced in their respective state). My point is that population's are mobile. The stats as quoted don't take into consideration that a person could grow up and marry in MA, then move to TN and subsequently divorce and vice-versa.
Also, as you pointed out, an immigrant could marry outside of the country and then divorce in any state. How would you account for that in the statistical model and still have a valid point re cultural / regional influence?
His point relies on the over-arching statement of a 50% difference in divorce rates. My point is that the census statistics
quoted are not reporting on cultural/ regional influence.
They are simple statements of record.
Assuming that populations are mobile, the question becomes at what point are values instilled. Born and married in a blue state for 20 years and so acculturated, moving to and divorcing after another 20 years in a red state is not at all addressed in this statistical model. At what point is a blue resident statistically relevant as being representative of values / behavior distinctive enough to be considered base-line? Must you be born there? If not, after how many years are you then considered a "true blue"?
It matters because the author implies that regions / states demonstrate certain behavior(divorce) as a direct result of residence without allowing for mobility, immigration, higher marriage rate, etc..
My original point was to point out the use (or misuse in this case) of statistics to bolster an argument that the statistics referenced were not designed to address.
Opinion is one thing. The selective appropriation and interpretation of statistical reporting is quite another. Statistics are useful but only so when the underlying constituent questions to which they speak are understood.
Th data was manipulated to his own end; namely a simplistic,demagogic overstatement.
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
.