The new Conservative government in Canada has lost its promised attempt to repeal same-sex marriage in that country. The vote in Canada's parliament was even more favorable to gay marriage than it was in 2005, with more Conservatives voting for it than last time. According to a story in the Toronto Sun, this appears to end the matter in Canada:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he heard the message and will respect it. "We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," Harper said. "I don't see reopening this question in the future."
The question put to MPs was whether they wanted to see legislation drafted to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, while respecting the existing marriages of gays and lesbians. That Conservative motion failed 175-123....
Ultimately, more MPs supported same-sex marriage than in the last vote on the issue in June 2005. During that charged vote last year, only three Tories voted in favour of expanding the definition of marriage. Today, the number who approved the status quo was 13, including high-profile politicians such as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and International Development Minister Josee Verner....
The action in Canada follows what has become a familiar pattern. Same-sex marriage emerges (sometimes through judicial action, sometimes not), which is followed by strong political resistance that weakens over time as people in the jurisdiction grow accustomed to the idea and see no ill effects from recognizing gay families in marriage.
The House of Commons has been dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage in earnest since 2002, when the Commons voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage. In 2003, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional.
Gays and lesbians began marrying in the province, and soon other jurisdictions faced similar rulings and began issuing licences. About 12,000 gay Canadians, as well as foreign visitors, have been married in the last three years.
A similar pattern emerged in Massachusetts after the Goodridge decision in 2003. There was a swift and strong political resistance to the decision, manifested in an initial vote to repeal gay marriage by constitutional amendment in the state legislature.
The next year, after an election in which opponents of gay marriage lost seats in the state legislature, there was much less support for repeal and the effort was overwhelmingly rebuffed. The Republican leader in the state senate stated that after a year of allowing gay marriage in the state he had not detected any changes-except that more people could now get married.
Seeing they no longer had the votes in the state legislature to enact a state constitutional ban, opponents of gay marriage then tried the tactic of forcing a popular vote on the issue, which would require the support of only a minority of the state legislature. That may still happen, but it probably won't succeed if it does. Almost three years into the recognition of gay marriage, with no evidence of ill effects, polls in the state show majorities now supporting gay marriage.
Vermont followed a similar pattern, too. In 2000, when the state supreme court ordered the state legislature to give gay couples equal benefits, there was strong legislative and popular resistance to the idea. In that fall's election several supporters of civil unions were defeated in a campaign marked by the slogan, "Take Back Vermont." But the furor subsided, played no significant role in subsequent elections, and is now over.
In states where the recognition of gay relationships emerged legislatively-like California and Connecticut-popular resistance seems to have been even lower. An effort to place the issue on the ballot in California has so far failed. There has been little or no organized resistance in Connecticut.
More tests of this pattern are coming soon. The New Jersey legislature has just voted, under pressure from the state supreme court, to extend civil unions to gay couples. It will be interesting to see whether New York and Washington state, whose legislatures will likely be dealing with the issue in the coming months, meet much resistance, and if so, whether that resistance also subsides after the state gains actual experience with recognizing gay families in law.
If the pattern of fierce-resistance-followed-by-acceptance continues, a future history of the struggle for gay marriage might appropriately be titled, "Much Ado About Nothing."
37 Comments for “A Lesson from Canada”
posted by dr on
But… but… aren’t god-fearing heterosexuals in Canada, Vermont, and Massachusetts horrified by the fact that the gays are rife with AIDs and meth and have sex in the street? What about by the fact that Elton John and Rosie O’Donnell are gay? Doesn’t that revolt them to their upright and moral core?
I KNOW it couldn’t possibly be that once the chicken little period passed, it was proven that gay marraige opponents didn’t have anything to say other than “Fags can’t marry because we hate ’em.” People would never, ever come to that conclusion.
After all, there are pride parades. With floats with men in drag. You’re telling my that people are actually able to make distinctions about different people within a demographic? You can’t be serious. This is obviously a fluke and it’s only a matter of time before the flamboyant and femm types freak enough people out that these places will ban marraige.
posted by PCT on
great article.
shhhh, dr, you might wake up the troll, aka ND30
posted by James on
I think it’s great that gays have the right to
marry in Canada. I hope they will show a
willingness to shoulder the responsibilites of
marriage, as well. I hope they come to recognize
divorce as a tragedy, that open relationships
don’t work, and that being parents is a great and
difficult calling. The gay community has really
given them no model of how to maintain a
lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship, so I
hope they choose healthy models from the straight
world–those wonderful couples who celebrate 30,
40, even 50+ anniversaries. I hope that gays who
have been hungering for the chance to marry
cherish the opportunity and don’t get bored and
have a series of ugly and messy divorces where
the children are forced to cope with immature and
unstable parents–I hope our devotion and loyalty
can even outshine heterosexual relationships, so
that we become the examples of monogamy,
stability, and wise parenthood. It can happen if
we leave behind the ghetto for the world of adult
relationships.
posted by dr on
“The gay community has really given them no model of how to maintain a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship…”
From CNN’s article on gay marriage in Mass.-
“At a news conference after the ruling’s release, the seven couples were elated with Tuesday’s ruling.
“We have been together 32 years,” said Gloria Bailey, whose partner, Linda Davies, proposed on the way to the conference. “Without a doubt this is the happiest day in our lives. The most important thing for us is knowing whatever comes ahead in the rest of our lives, we now know we can be at each others’ sides.” ”
We do have examples of couples who have been exclusive for 30+ years. From personal experiance, the gentlemen down my block just celebrated 25 years of exclusivity. The examples are there already.
Really, I hope the gay community does alot better than the heterosexual community does in terms of marraiges that stay together.
posted by Tim on
Two of my friends have been together for 40 years.
James has little regard for his fellow gay people.
posted by raj on
James | December 20, 2006, 9:34pm |
The gay community has really given them no model of how to maintain a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship, so I hope they choose healthy models from the straight world–those wonderful couples who celebrate 30, 40, even 50+ anniversaries.
Oh, this is rich. Models from a straight world that has a 50% divorce rate? You must truly be kidding.
BTW, it’s amusing that the commenter who admits that he has no gay friends, is not (and probably never has been) in a same-sex relationship–and who apparently makes little effort to find either gay friends or a same-sex relationship–is continually whining about what a non-existent gay community does or does not provide him or anyone else with.
These observations coming from someone (me) who has actually been in a same-sex relationship for over 28 years. And, no, we have not needed any other gay people to provide us with any “model” as to how to maintain our relationship.
posted by Craig on
My parents celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary this year.
Unhappily, they’re the only ones in dad’s generation on his side of the family still together. And my sister’s marriage broke up after only a year, while my partner and I have been together for the last four.
Family values, anyone?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by raj on
James | December 20, 2006, 9:34pm |
BTW, James, I just left a question for you over at the “Church of Hate” thread.
posted by James on
You know, everyone chides me on this board because of the way I have pictured gay relationships, but honestly, I have never, ever, ever, seen a lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationship. And, yes, I’ve met lots o’ gays. From the age of 15 to 25, almost all my friends were gays–the rest were Wiccans. Even after I pulled out of that scene, I continued to meet gays at work, and through music and theater. I have gay acquaintances right now. I don’t pursue them as friends because our values clash on fundamental levels. So, you can keep telling me that I don’t know the “right” gays, even though I make it to the rallies once a year, and I talk to gays on boards like this. What exactly am I missing? Are they on Dudesnude or Realjock?
I really think I have met enough gays to have at some point met this mythical unicorn of the gay community, the lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. I have to challenge you all that you are making it up because you want to win an argument, and that by “sexually exclusive” you really mean “not versatile.” I would bet that most people with any knowledge of the gay community do not find a huge community of faithful couples raising kids and volunteering at homeless shelters, this Norman Rockwell reality hidden by a thin veneer of guys in drag singing “We Are Family” on a float shaped like a dildo. No, I think that once you get past the thin veneer of dildo floats, you find meth addicts riding each other bareback and making fun of the 1 or 2 “Stepford Wives” in their wildly diverse Rainbow World.
Stop pretending the gay community is something it isn’t. Once you face the reality, you can do something about it. You can also be nice to those of us who are trying to find healthier, happier ways of being gay. And maybe you could wish that I could find the partner I am seeking instead of chiding me for not having one–because then, you’d have another couple you could use as an example of a good marriage. With God’s help, of course.
posted by dr on
“Stop pretending the gay community is something it isn’t.”
Funny coming from the guy who’s constructed a gay boogeyman in his head.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that you had a period of promiscuity in your 20’s, got guilty, found some nutbag church that externalizes everything so its members never need to confront anything, and now you spend the your time projecting things that you did that you regret, or things that you still want to do, on other people. You sound like a Focus on the Family press release. You realize that right? I tried to be polite, but you aren’t interested in discussion. You just blow any logic off, refuse to answer questions, and go back to your drum beat of “traditional values” whatever the hell that means at the moment.
Either that, or you’re the most creative and determined troll I’ve ever seen.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James is so willfully ignorant that I’m beginning to believe that his posts here are nothing more than astroturf. You’ve never met a lifelong gay couple? How about seeking them out…trust me they are out there, just not at the church meetings and creepy dark rooms you inhabit.
posted by dr on
“How about seeking them out…”
Here’s the thing… you don’t need to seek them out. They’re fairly damned easy to find anywhere there are significant numbers of gay people. They’re only hard to find if you willfully blind yourself to them because they don’t mesh with your world view that all gays (other than you) are meth addled whores.
posted by James on
Every “long-term” relationship I have ever known has been an “open relationship.” I have never met any straight couple in an open relationship–I’ve known couples who struggle with adultery, and frequently they get divorced, but I’ve never, ever, ever met a straight couple where other sex partners were expected an OK–but that has been the case with every single, solitary gay couple. I challenge you to think of any long-term gay couple which is not an open relationship. I challenge you to think of any straight, married couple which is an open relationship. If you are being honest, and not just redefining terms like “monogamy” in order to win an argument, you will see that sexually exclusive relationships are the Bigfoot of the gay community–lots of people claim to have seen one, but no one has any verifiable proof.
posted by James on
That first line was meant to be “Every gay couple I have ever met.”
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I can name you three exclusive gay couples who have been together 5+ years off the top of my head (with no “bending” of the definition of exclusive either). My partner and I have been together for three wonderful years and am exclusive with no intention of “opening” up…so kindly take your hate-speach about how we don’t exist and f*ck right off. You have a seriously misguided view of human nature gay or otherwise. You’ve never met a heterosexual couple who has an open relationship, don’t make me laugh. What, are swingers a figment of our imagination? Here in Denver there are at LEAST two swingers clubs…I’m sure these are empty every night of the week since straight-swingers don’t exist, huh James? The reason you’ve never met a straight couple with an open relationship probably has more to do with your extremely negative personality than with their coming forward to you with what would be a very personal facet of their relationship. Grow up James, sex and relationships are MUCH MUCH more complex than you seem to be able to comprehend.
posted by jomicur on
“I have never met any straight couple in an open relationship–I’ve known couples who struggle with adultery, and frequently they get divorced, but I’ve never, ever, ever met a straight couple where other sex partners were expected an OK”
If this is true, James, you’re leading an even more sheltered life than any of us suspected. Have you seen today’s news? 90% of people–everyone, not just gay people– have “sex out of wedlock.” Your image of straight society is every bit as off-kilter as your image of gay people. Maybe you should get out of your room more often. Or have your medication adjusted.
posted by James on
So, to recap–
Gays are just like straights in every way. The exact same percentage of gays are in open relationships as straights. Most gays are in sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships. There is only a small minority, say under 5%, of gays who have multiple partners or use drugs. They get all the press, but most gays don’t live like that. Anyone with any experience of the gay community would see primarily loving, committed couples which are models of maturity and stability.
The reason people don’t see the maturity and stability of the gay community is purely and only because of homophobia. People hate the concept of two men loving each other so much, it has so much of an “ick” factor, that they simply can’t see the wonderful examples of lifelong, exclusive couples all around them. Homophobia blinds them so completely that all they can see are those 1 or 2 flamboyant gays on the fringe. Gays have contributed nothing to their problems–far from it, gays have been models of morality and prudence and pillars of society, who have shown in their exemplary behavior that they should have the right to marry and adopt without question. It is only homophobia which prevents society from accepting gays.
If I go out tomorrow, I will find nothing but wonderful, mature, loving gay couples everywhere and my homophobia will be cured. Everything you say will be true, and I will report back to this board a humbled, changed man.
What joyous adventures must await me in the wonderful gay world of committed love and sober living! I can barely wait for the reparative process to begin.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Yep, nothing but astroturf…just as I expected. Grow up, James. You asked us for examples and they were given to you…did we really expect you to admit that you are wrong in your own homophobic and hate-filled conspiracy theories? Nope, we just expected more of the same from you…which is just what we got. No wonder you don’t have many friends gay or otherwise. What a jerk. Merry f*cking Christmas you piece of dirt.
posted by jomicur on
Oh, James. Really, you are just to dumb to be believed. On the one hand you don’t think gay people should be permitted to get married. On the other you condemn us for not forming stable, permanent relationships. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, as most nutcase reactionaries do. Or should I say out of both of the holes in your head? It’s xmas, James; why not ask Baby Jesus to bring you a functional brain?
posted by Xeno on
It’s much easier to attempt to reframe the argument than to accept that you’re wrong, sadly.
posted by raj on
I’ve come to the conclusion that either James is a troll, or he is seriously in need of counselling. I seriously believe the former. But if the latter, I gave up my counselling cry-on shoulder long ago and am not really interested in continuing to participate in his re-habilitation.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I think Raj is right, James is an astro-turfing troll – actually gay people don’t admit to homophobia.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That should have read “actual gay people don’t have homophobia”.
posted by cesqua on
james: get over yourself. this “lifelong” sexually exclusive relationship doesnt constitute the norm in the het world either. your rose colored glasses only fit you. the rest of us are not chiding you. that would imply we’re teasing or kidding. i am very seriously admonishing you for making gross generalizations about lesbians and gays. i’m starting to believe that you are racist also. and not at all accepting of other religions. you want gays to fit into this tiny little box that most hets don’t fit into, you want muslims to western it up a bit to frighten you less (seriously! muslims praying before a flight? don’t you pray? what is so scary about that? according to you that is all anyone should ever do). i’m guessing that you believe all illegal immigrants are lazy mexicans, all blacks can dance and play sports and thats it. generalizations are dangerous in any form.
posted by cesqua on
BTW james: there’s this group of people called swingers. they are made up in part of het married couples. now try to pay attention to this when these swingers get together they have sex. with lots of people or in front of lots of people for pleasure. it’s not just behind closed doors in their marital beds. it’s not even just gays and lesbians. i know i know it’s shocking. do you need a hug? well maybe NDXXX can give you one cause i don’t want you touching me.
posted by Thom on
Wow … just stumbled onto this site. James you are speaking only from your tiny piece of the world. I will admit that I have met many gay couples who have “open” relationships and FOR ME, I don’t feel that is a true loving relationship. However, I have also met my share of long term gay couples who have a closed relationship. I believe that it has a lot to do with maturity and a realization that sex, while important, is not the only defining principal of marriage (or relationship). My partner and I are over 7 years have just married in Toronto (which you can see on Logo starting Feb 2007). We met many individuals through the process who were in monogomour relationships, but we also met those who were in open relationships. AND, many who had been in open relationships, after getting married have realized that the “open” aspect no longer feels right to them and have ceased that “open” aspect of their partnership. I met others who were in committed relationships when I started making friends outside of the bar scenes and circuit parties. I found MANY like me and my partner at work and in professional associations that we are part of. We are both professional business men who enjoy our lives outside of the gay bubble that we lived most of our life in. We enjoy the ownership of a nice home, great jobs, a marriage and looking forward to adopting children in the very near future. Best of luck to you!
posted by Thom on
sorry about the typing on my post above. Thought I cut and pasted the “spell checked” version … ;-(
posted by Jai on
While he may not have the personal experience that most of us have had, James does make some valid points….In a twisted unintentional way.
As a gay man who has been an vocal activist in several states, I have to share some of my views and insights that I have garnished over the years. I can understand why he thinks that those couples who have been together for so long are the “mythical unicorn” as he put it because those are the ones that do not go to the clubs, do not end up on the tv when speaking about GLBT issues, and are not the most flamboyant of our groups. Any time that you see something opposing GLBT issues, you see the images of the white parties, the focus on the drag queens at the parades, and the promiscuity and drug use of the community. So in that regards I can understand why James has his beliefs and empathize with him.
HOWEVER!!!! I ask, have you tried to find this unicorn you speak of? You say that you know so many gays, yet you do not pursue them as friends because of your difference in values. Just because you do not agree with someone, does that mean that you can not be friends with them? Put forth an effort! You might learn a few things.
I do agree with the fact that the GLBT community does not have an really good role models. I have watched the emergence of “newbies” for many years and it has always been the same story. With no role models to look up to, they find only the ones at the bar and fall into the same trap as the ones before them. They are taught all their lives that this is wrong, that it is not right, that it is not possible to love someone of the same gender. It is ingrained so far into their head that they can not get it out.
Because of this, they have a tendency to push anyone they begin to have feelings for cause it is not right. They think that they can only enjoy the act of love and not the real love. On the reverse, if they want the real love, they end up being hurt by those that do not repeatedly till they themselves think this is what it is supposed to be like. That is what the straight community has pounded into our heads for centuries. We are taught by heterosexuals that monogomy between same-gender couples is not possible and because of that many are not.
So I have a challenge for each of you, especially if you are one of our “mythical unicorns.” CHANGE THE TEACHINGS! Become active in your communities and help show people that what we are taught from a young age is wrong! That unicorns are not just a legend but a real possible thing that even they can find!
Just my thoughts, and what I have learned from speaking with many people from all generations in several states. Take it as you will.
posted by James on
I agree that there are many long term, sexually exclusive gay couples. I agree with Jai–they are not very visible. My complaint is that they are not the norm. Being homosexual simply means being attracted to the same sex–it does not mean promiscuity, flamboyance, drag, parades, or anything else. Being gay does not equal being effeminate–there are just as many straight effeminate men as gay effeminate men.
My whole point is very simple–you can be gay and have traditional values and orthodox faith. That’s all I’m saying. I’m tired of being pushed out of the gay community because I won’t conform to its idea of diversity. My colors aren’t apparently part of the rainbow.
I was under the impression that this site was here as an alternative to the more visible gay community–but you seem to be just as harsh on anyone with a different vision of the gay lifestyle as anyone else.
posted by cesqua on
“…the fact that the GLBT community does not have an really good role models.” fact? are you kidding? in your activist work have you never influenced anyone? i know i have. i am a homo role model and i’m offended that you completely disregard the unicorn that are out here, everywhere doing our part to help the sick, the young, the old and the gay. i also volunteer with new immigrants. look down jai, the role models are gay parents, teachers, volunteers, and those people you told james to go look for not in some sky bound pie. it’s a lie that role models need to be famous. lance bass? come on. he’s as effective as brittany, paris and nichole. would you call them role models? no. a 4th grade teacher? a firefighter? an involved grandparent? much more approachable and always a better choice.
posted by cesqua on
my point is this: it’s not ‘bad gays’ that keep us from marriage equality. find your proof in how many ‘bad str8s’ are running out allowed to marry and reproduce. it’s an unfair rule set by unfair power hungry people and promoted by their brainwashed minions. of course the forefathers didn’t mean ALL like EVERYONE. just all who conform to what polite society deems as normal. many other countries have realized that it’s just fair policy and good for morale to allow people to form protected unions. hopefully the usa will too.
posted by Jai on
Cesqua, you are correct. I did not explain my point as well as I should have. That was my mistake. I do not disagree with your assessment of my post due to this.
On a local scale, there are some role models for our youth, and even our older members, to look up to. Sometimes they are not easy to find though. I know that in the state I currently live in, we have a large GLBT community, yet we have no organized group, no community center, and our Pride parade in ’06 consisted of 2 cars! We are working on changing that though. A group of people that I have just met are actively working to get a community center established and begin the process of making those worth looking up to visible. Though I have only recently moved to this state, I am already taking steps to assist them.
The role models that I was referring to before are the more visible national role models. I agree that ones like Lance Bass are not the epitome of a GLBT role model, but ones such as Sir Ian McKellen are. Not because he is a celebrity like some of the visible GLBT persona, but because of his activism.
With the publicity and images that the anti-GLBT organizations use on a local, state, and national level we need to be more visible to counteract that. Also on a local, state, and national level. As we begin to have more nationally recognized positive GLBT role models, the perception of the GLBT community can begin to change. Role models such as Mary Cheney who has been with her partner for several years and is beginning a family with her are what we need to show that we are just like everyone else. That we are capable of those long term relationships with a single partner, that we can raise happy and healthy families, that we are not all reflections of the white parties and the drug addicts.
James, I was not trying to push you out. In fact I was agreeing with much of what you were saying because I know why you see it that way. My comments were all of us, not just you. And they were not trying to push anyone out.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Models from a straight world that has a 50% divorce rate?
Why do silly liberals keep repeating this falsehood?
There is not a 50% divorce rate — a quick perusal of the state divorce rates show it’s closer to 19%. Only one state, Nevada, even comes close to that measure at 47%.
The origin of the “50% divorce rate” thesis is evidence of the general innumeracy in the political classes in America today — they note that the number of divorces in a given year is 1/2 the number of marriages and conclude that there’s a 50% divorce rate. This is the same “math” that gives us “let’s hike spending and cut taxes to balance the budget” and “a single-payer health care system can improve the quality of care and reduce costs.”
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Nice mud-slinging NL, you did a real nice job of completely missing the point…congratulations! Now, how about some references for your “statistics”? Here’s an extra-credit hint for you…check out wikipedia, it has ACTUAL statistics not just made up numbers from “a quick perusal of the state divorce rates.” Please note that I am NOT saying the 50% FUD is correct, because it plainly isn’t. But your 19% bullshit is…well, bullshit. Pull your head out and get a clue before you try to prove your “intellect” here.
posted by raj on
~sigh~
Northeast Libertarian | December 27, 2006, 3:45pm |
>>>Models from a straight world that has a 50% divorce rate?
(snip)
There is not a 50% divorce rate — a quick perusal of the state divorce rates show it’s closer to 19%. Only one state, Nevada, even comes close to that measure at 47%.
From the US Government’s CDC, First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce, and Remarriage: United States:
Percentage of first marriages disrupted by divorce or separation:
Within the first 5 years of marriage: 20%
10 years: 33%
15 years: 43%
20 years: 50%
Reference: Table 3, Fig. 1 and accompanying text.
The percentage of separations ending in divorce is fairly high (reference Table 5, Fig. 3 and accompanying text) so most separations eventually lead to divorce.
Percentage of divorcees who remarry (second marriages):
Within 5 years of the divorce: 54%
10 years: 75%
15 years: 83%
Reference: Table 7, Fig. 5 and accompanyng text.
Percentage of second marriages disrupted by divorce or separation:
Within 5 years of the remarriage: 23%
10 years: 39%.
Reference: Table 9, Fig. 7 and accompanying text.
These statistics were derived from a rather extensive survey conducted by the CDC. The survey was conducted among women, not men, which allows possible “gender bias” to be removed from the statistics. By “gender bias” in this context I mean that, for example, a first marriage for a woman may be the second (or third, etc.) marriage for a man, and vice versa. The survey was also conducted only among women 15-44 years of age, which means that divorces among older women (whether in the first or second marriage) would not have been included. In addition, the survey included only first and marriages, so subsequent re-marriages would not have been included. Combining the rather high first marriage disruption (separation or divorce) rate, the rather high remarriage rate, and the rather high second marriage disruption rate, the 50% figure for the overall divorce rate is really not out of line, and may actually be on the low side–although, it should be recognized that the statistics above are for both separation and divorced and separation statistics would not be reflected in the divorce rate.
Why do silly liberals keep repeating this falsehood?
I don’t know: maybe you should ask one. On the other hand, maybe you should try to figure out why self-described libertarians are apparently so innumerate.
The “50% divorce rate” can be naively obtained by comparing the marriage rate for a given year with the divorce rate for that same year, and, indeed, such a comparison does yield the 50% figure. I would attribute the similarities between that naive approach and the more detailed approach that I described above to a “pipeline effect.” That is, (i) people get married on particular days, but may get divorced at different points in time over the next five, ten, fifteen, twenty, etc., years, but (ii) given the fact that the statistics deal with populations, not individuals, (a) the percentage of people who marry is unlikely to change very much from year to year, and (b) the percentage of people who divorce or separate is also unlikely to change very much from year to year, even for marriages that were concluded in previous years.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
Let me say it straightforwardly: Fifty percent of American marriages are not ending in divorce. It’s fiction. A myth. A tragically discouraging urban legend.
If there’s no credible evidence that half of American marriages will end up in divorce court, where did that belief originate?
Demographers say there was increased focus on divorce rates during the 1970s when the number of divorces rose, partly as a result of no-fault divorce. Divorces peaked in 1979 and articles started appearing that claimed 50 percent of American marriages were ending in divorce.
A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics told me that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you’d find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.
…
So what is the divorce picture in America? Surprisingly, it’s not easy to get precise figures because some states don’t report divorces to the National Center for Health Statistics, including one of the largest: California.
Some researchers have relied on surveys rather than government statistics. In his book Inside America in 1984, pollster Louis Harris said that only about 11 or 12 percent of people who had ever been married had ever been divorced. Researcher George Barna’s most recent survey of Americans in 2001 estimates that 34 percent of those who have ever been married have ever been divorced.
One of the latest reports about divorce was released this year by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It is based on a 1995 federal study of nearly 11,000 women ages 15-44. It predicted that one-third of new marriages among younger people will end in divorce within 10 years and 43 percent within 15 years. That is not a death sentence, however; it’s a forecast. Martha Farnsworth Riche, former head of the Census Bureau, told USA Today, “This is what is going to happen unless we want to change it.”
So I suppose if you want to take a CDC projection, and then transform it into a statement of fact, that’s your prerogative. Unfortunately, projections aren’t facts and certainly aren’t demographically correct. It’s a bit like taking George W. Bush’s surplus forecast from 2001 and projecting reductions in the foreign debt by 2008.
Further, using George W. Bush’s CDC for forecasts is silly too, since it’s caught up in the “save marriage” business and needs to be able to justify all the largesse it’s receiving from the federal government for “marriage promotion.” You certainly don’t accept the Bush administration’s data on global warming or deficit reduction, but suddenly it’s gospel on marriage statistics?
Sorry charlie.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | December 30, 2006, 5:03pm |
Your source might have a point, were it not for the fact that the marriage rate vs. divorce rate has been remarkably consistent from 1975 (before the peak in the divorce rate in the late 1970s) to the present–at a minor plus or minus 50%–as shown in the table here. Since the rate comparisons have been remarkably consistent over the 30 year time span, it is highly likely that the conclusions of the survey, taken in 1995 and reported on in May, 2001, in the article that I linked to, are probably quite accurate.
Your source may be correct–and I believe is, as I have stated elsewhere–that the increased availability of “no-fault” divorce in the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in the increase in divorce seen in the mid- to late-1970s resulting from pent-up demand. But that’s pretty much irrelevant to the issue of the relationship between year-to-year marriage rates and divorce rates, which, as indicated in the linked-to table, has been remarkably consistent from 1975 to the present day.
BTW, your slamming of the May, 2001, report as being of the Bush CDC is noted, but as far as I’m concerned, it is remarkably childish. Are you seriously going to suggest that a report based on statistics that had been amassed in a 1995 survey, and reported on in May, 2001, a mere five months after Bush took office, were somehow tainted by the fact that Bush had taken office? That’s pretty much preposterous.
BTW(2), this statement
So I suppose if you want to take a CDC projection, and then transform it into a statement of fact, that’s your prerogative
indicates that you really don’t understand statistics. No surprise. The CDC paper that I linked to did not issue a projection. It issued a statistical assessment of the state of affairs as of the time the data were collected. Your belief that the CDC paper was a projection is about as dumb as naively assuming that, because the “life expectancy” of (for example) a male in the United States is (something like) 72 years old, that a male currently residing in the United States who has attained the age of 70 is likely to die within two years. That’s preposterous, as any student of statistics will tell you.
Try again. And try not being innumerate next time. Cite papers with numbers.