5 years after Marriage Equality, Massachusetts has lowest divorce rate in nation

Here's the evidence, folks.

Gays have not destroyed marriage. In fact, they've brought the Massachusetts divorce rate down to where it was in 1940.

Facts and figures from the National Center for Vital Statistics among others.

No more can the NC media claim to just "be fair" when quoting the American Taliban and other theocrat lobbyists.

I've got the research right here. There's even a Daily Show clip to make things fun.

So how does North Carolina stack up against MA, or even Vermont - where civil unions have been in place for just as long? Take look at the chart.

Civil unions and gay marriage do not increase the divorce rate and do not threaten any straight couple's marriage.

It's past time for equality to be the law of the land.

No more blindly accepting statements from the wannabe theocrats without demanding refutation of the data.


Am I a hopeful cynic?

Maybe, but who is my real target audience?

The reactionary lurkers, the political consultants, the media that drops by, the almost friends who need to be bolstered with data...

So many audiences. That's what the blog is for!



and thanks for the good post. I hadn't seen those divorce statistics. Just think ... a state filled with commie pinko liberals consistently beating all others in terms of marriage. Whodathunkit?

Why is this a topic of debate?

"Civil Unions", "Marriage", yada yada. Why has this become a topic for debate in America? People that are allowed to have "civil unions" and being gay/lesbian in just about every state have the very same rights and equality that people that have what is deemed a "marriage". What is the debate, really? Both are "unions". I know that christians want to keep the term "marriage" as meaning between a man and a woman. But, most of these people recognize the legitimacy of bonds between two people of the same sex. It is just about the interpretation as depicted in the bible and thus must be kept sacred. I respect their faith but this shouldn't be a hill they should die on. It is just a word. It means nothing, really.

That is my take on this volitile issue.

The "separate yet equal" civil unions have failed in New Jersey

People that are allowed to have "civil unions" and being gay/lesbian in just about every state have the very same rights and equality that people that have what is deemed a "marriage".

Absolutely wrong.

However, we don't get a chance at that half-a-loaf of equality (civil unions) in North Carolina.

Setting aside the federal benefits of marriage -- which all straight couples get, but no gay couples (whether married or civil unioned) receive -- employers and others routinely ignore the imperative that civil unions be considered equal to marriage.

The documentation on this civil union attempt at equality has been going on for a few years in New Jersey, and the evidence is clear that all consensual relationship contracts (marriages/civil unions) need to be on the same legal footing.


People are allowed to have marriages.

Honestly, it shouldn't be a debate at all, the equal rights should be given freely to the citizens as promised. Unfortunately, some people like to inject their personal fear, dislike, or even enjoyment of "superiority" into the matter.

But we are far from equal in this country (especially in this state) First the problem with Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships is that they often do no grant all the same right as a Marriage License. Some states that have them offer only 1-10% of the rights, and none of the federal level rights are granted. Even if the same rights were granted (unlikely) then there is still the social aspect of it. Imagine if women were granted the same voting rights as men, but instead of calling them "voters" we called them "Opinion Givers"

As far as recognizing the legitimacy of the bonds of a relationship couple, most people actually don't, and even one incident of it not being recognized can have devastating consequences. An friend of mine was with his partner for 8 years, when his partner died suddenly of a heart attack, they're relationship (with out the legal protection of a marriage license) meant nothing in the eyes of the law, because his partner's name was the only name on the deed to the house it went deceased's "next of kin" who then ran my friend out of the house he had helped pay for. I always hear "A will would have stopped this" but it wouldn't. 99% of the time the will of a same-sex couple is thrown out.

There are just so many rights and laws affected by marriage that even that is an oversimplified explanation, even if he had inherited the house. (I'll have to do a blog on them when I find my book again LOL)

Even some of my fellow democrats refuse to recognize the bond of a relationship between same-sex couples. I've become quite irritated by having a few of them I know refer to my husband, as my friend.

(I don't know if this link works, but we'll try.)
This is a mapthat shows the legal status of my relationship in the US

Marriage is just a word. But, like air, it only means nothing until you can't have it.

Boku no otto wa totemo aishite

I am saddened to read what you've written

I think what you've written is a reaction to, in some way, what I've put here on BlueNC. For that, I'm saddened.

I don't know how much of what you've said is totally accurate and not sure about the percentages and so forth. I can say, however, that I truly believe that if every state doesn't consider (for legal purposes) a "civil union" between gay/lesbian couples the same as man/woman married couples, it's a crying shame. I know that sometimes there are exceptions and extenuating circumstances that happen that often times are presented to show what isn't really the norm and hopefully you haven't given anything like that.

Gay/lesbian couples should have the exact same rights and privileges "married" couples have. I've said that a number of times here and believe that in my heart. Having said that, I do understand why the WORD "marriage" means so much to so many people in our country defining that as "between a man and a woman". Even Obama believes that but that's not to say it means it is correct somehow, just that the VAST majority of our citizenry in America views the word in that light. Gay/lesbians must push for equal rights and should not get so hung up on a word.

Hung up on a word

Unfortunately, I do get hung up on a word. There is great power in words as everyone here can testify to, and that is one reason I do get hung up on it. Because there is a great atrocity in saying "everyone else gets Marriage, you get civil unions" There is an enormous difference in the equality of social perspective between "I just married my husband" as compared to "I just civilly unioned my same sex domestic partner."

Should a person that becomes a US citizen and gains all the legal rights as such be referred to as "Permanent Resident of the US" while all other people with those rights are called "Citizens?"

I understand where you are coming from in regards to the word, but you can not say you support equality if you have to call it something different. All men get "voting rights", all women get "right to promote opinion."

As for the story of what happened it is 100% accurate, but I don't use his name because I've never asked his permission to tell that story. And there are many many more like it. As for the wills being over turned that info came from a legal guide for gay and lesbian couples.

The reason the word matters so much to us, is no less the reason that it matters so much to others, the difference is by granting it to one set of couples and denying it to others is discrimination and promotion of "special rights" (or creating a privilidged class) Would you ask interracial couples that were fighting for legal recognition before Loving v. Virginia to accept the term civil union as opposed to marriage?

Boku no otto wa totemo aishite

Extremely well put

I do understand your plight and I don't have an objection to "marriage" being a union between any two people. I probably came across as believing differently than that, but I can assure you, I am on your side on this. I was trying to present what our American majority feels and why.

Thanks for a very well put message. In time, I'm convinced this will all be worked out. Thanks.


Actually, it is more likely I read what you wrote incorrectly. I tend to get defense when someone starts talking about my family, as I'm sure most people do. But either way hopefully it will give some food for thought for those fence sitters out there.

Boku no otto wa totemo aishite


Marriage is an institution that was instituted by God. It is a shame that people cannot recognize this or refuse to recognize this. Marriage is not something that some human made up. casino en ligne


What does that mean for people who don't believe in god who happen to be married? Serious question.

No, marriage

is actually a state function. Even Martin Luther, generator of the Protestant Reformation, recognized this. It's something the state does, not something the Church does. A Church can choose to bless a marriage or not, but the Church has absolutely no power to marry a couple that isn't given to it by the state.

church and state

It is true that no marriage sanctioned by the Church which doesn't comport with state law will be recognized legally, but additionally Churches have the right to recognize marriages not legally contracted and not to recognize legally contracted marriages. For instance, remarriage after divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Churches or most Orthodox, either, although it legally exists. Interracial marriages, when illegal in most states, were often recognized by Churches in some of those states.

Do you take this idiot as your " lawful" idiot?

Marriage is an institution that was instituted by God. It is a shame that people cannot recognize this or refuse to recognize this. Marriage is not something that some human made up* Brian

Tell that to Jesus Mom and Pop! The Roman Government couldn't find their marriage records, but boy did they tax the crap out them when they show up for the annual Censor Tax head count....

Oh, that's bad man !!

To the point, but BAD. Are you kin to Beck?

Just asking.


Who is God married to?

Why was there polygamy in the bible?

"Keep the Faith"

Some Churches recognize Marriage Equality

Which religion is the state going to endorse and which is the state going to say is wrong? The answer has to be none of them, and leave the state work to civil marriages & then churches themselves can decide whether or not to give religious blessing to the ceremony, but leave the civil & legal workings of it to the state.

I'm beating a dead horse, I think

"Marriage", "Union", yada yada. I know churces currently have a corner on "marriage". But, any way you look at it, if two people bond together and live together and create a life together (operative word here to me, at least, is "together") states should afford them whoever they are all the same rights and priviliges.

That just seems fair. It is not up to a state or any government to make a judgement about who can or cannot bond together. It just doesn't fit into our system of government.

Civil Unions for all

I'm not suggesting this is what anyone here in particular is advocating, but I see a lot of people advocating for lgbts to stop pushing for marriage equality, and instead start pushing for civil unions for all, and I see 2 major downsides to that.

1) Governments has had its hand in civil marriages for a very long, now that lgbts are starting to get included, it would feel a little bit "well if they are going to let the gays have it, lets just stop calling it marriage altogether" and even if that isn't what someone is trying to get it, having the lgbt movement get so close then told they shouldn't care about the word can come across that way.

2) We'd never win that way. Being pro-marriage equality is already sometimes painted as being anti-marriage by groups like the national organization for marriage & family council groups... can you imagine how anti-marriage the lgbt equality movement would be if they started advocating for taking away the word marriage from everyone & just calling it civil unions for all? Right now lgbt equality advocates can say "my getting married wont affect your marriage" but if the lgbt equality movement is pushed in the direction of changing the name for everyone's marriage, then it will affect their marriage, and that is just a hurdle to high in an already difficult race.

It's Not Sexual

Marriage is a bond of mutual respect and devotion between people. Same with the term family. Heck even people on C Street understand The Family is about looking out for one another, not sharing DNA. Just like the Mafia.

Back to marriage. When two people look out for one another's welfare, work together, share, console, consult, comfort and establish a lasting bond that they want to affirm and call marriage, so be it.

Why does some other mortal get to pass judgement? Does Barney Frank fit the definition of marriage less than Mark Sanford?


Marriage is a contract by historical definition. It is an exchange of goods. Hence the reason for Dowry.

Boku no otto wa totemo aishite

Glenn's evil twin speaks at Town Meeting?

To the point, but BAD. Are you kin to Beck?

Just asking.*Foxtrot

I am Beck's evil twin transgender crossdressing Venus Atheist Mormon Communist by marriage to his Sister......Other than, we believe that Glenn was a victim of a out of control Ungenics program by the Nazi's during WW2.

Reason Online

had a piece on this issue recently, you can read it here. Marriage is a state function, it is not a proper province of the federal government. If, over a longer period of time, similar statistics appear, advocates of gay marriage will have a much stronger argument for legalization in NC.

Federal Government

I'll agree marriage is a state function, but there are federal rights involved as well. So it is also an Federal level issue too.

Boku no otto wa totemo aishite

Divorce Rate

I had been looking online for a statistic to support this statement for a debate I was having with someone a while back, and actually stumbled across another statistic that I thought was interesting. The states with the highest divorce rates are also the the states that are more conservative. Maybe since NC went blue this last election our divorce rate will drop :D

Boku no otto wa totemo aishite


State-sanctioned marriage is just another example of the state's successful attempt to supplant other, non-violent social institutions.

Like other traditions, social norms, religious institutions and private laws, the issue of marriage should not be regulated or defined by the state. The state can't define "right" or "wrong" (though it tends to serve as a pretty good example of the latter) because the people do and should decide those things.

"The natural wage of labor is its product." -- Benjamin R. Tucker
A liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to.

It's not about "right and wrong"

There are laws, rights and privileges associated with "marriage" in most states. That's what this is about, not "right" or "wrong".

Does there need to be some change associated with that word? Maybe so. In the mean time, some/many states recognize "marriage" as between a man and a woman and many states also recognize "civil unions" and it all is associated with such things as survivors rights and other legal processes.

I think you missed my point

My point is that what is considered "marriage" should be decided the same way that society decides what is "right" and "wrong".

I understand the current state of the law.

"The natural wage of labor is its product." -- Benjamin R. Tucker
A liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to.

Enforcing contracts part of state duty?

I thought even the most libertarian of libertarians considered equitable enforcement of consensual contracts one of the essential functions of a government.

If I misunderstand your particular brand of libertarianism, my apologies.


Well written

Nicely articulated. I agreed with what Foxtrot mentioned. Interesting!!
Click here

It is an interesting subject, for sure, Rafter

This subject is no less complicated in our society than the issue of abortion. Both, of course, go to what we, as citizens see as "values". The Christrian right has one set of beliefs on this based on their Bible and the more "progressive" people look at both issues from a commonsensical perspective.

This will most certainly be an issue that will be much like the Palestinian/Israeli situation that has been going on ever since I was in high school which has been FAR longer than I would like to admit. It is going to be a very tough nut to crack and there may very well be no good solution on it. I think it will take a Roe v. Wade type of ruling to settle it and even then, there will be a great deal of dissention for eons.

Interesting is definately the word.