Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage

Reader Comments
Back to article

@ huck of NC: Yeah, I'll be sure to tell that to every straight guy that's cheated on his wife. Tiger Woods ring a bell? How about Newt Gingrich? Eliot Spitzer? Arnold Schwarzenegger... Mark Sanford... John McCain... Bill Clinton... and on and on...

David in Houston of TX 11:31AM July 07, 2011

This is a classic case of "correlation is not causation". There are so few "gay marriages" that it seems absurd to attribute any significant effect to them. The other factors mentioned deeper in the essay are more persuasive but lack that yellow journalism headline punch.

Reston of NV 11:19AM July 07, 2011

Infidelity in many gay marriages is condoned, expected and sometimes encouraged. So that removes the adultery cause of divorce.

huck of NC 11:13AM July 07, 2011

CAn we even write an article on this given same sex marriage is new and the numbers are so tiny? Talk about a liberal driven agenda.

stop2think of VA 11:05AM July 07, 2011

What causes more damage to a family, daddy regularly visiting a prostitute or a gay daddy staying home with his life partner whom he has married??? As for Arkansas, I'd like to see the percentage of hetero's who have married their first cousin!

wayne of WI 10:46AM July 07, 2011

Are they checking the marriage rates in these states against the divorce rates. Fewer within the demographic where same-sex marriage is popular bother getting married.

Virginia of NY 10:20AM July 07, 2011

An enduring hypocrisy ... or else a strong delusion ... ALWAYS claims that it can "refute" the evidence ... but never does so when confronted!
How does the legal profession characterize this ... intellectual dishonesty?
See Reason 8 of 17 in the online article "Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?" ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated ). It is evidence-based!
(Lawyer and author Roger J. Magnuson(“Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pg. 137)
"... Lawyer Roger J. Magnuson who makes the point at page 137 that gay militants typically use a fourfold tactical plan in their initiatives at deception:
a) They avoid, whenever possible, serious public debate over gay rights measures,
b) If debate is imminent, they seek to intimidate opposing voices into silence.
c) If debate occurs, they use ad hominem arguments; label opponents as superstituous, insensitive and ignorant.
d) If the debate goes beyond ad hominem labelling, they avoid at all costs discussion of homosexual behaviour, and keep the discussion as abstract as possible - civil rights, discrimination, minority status!...."
I would say you are at {c} ...

Roger of NY 10:14AM July 07, 2011

Roger, I could counter each and every one of your comments with about five or more reputable and respected quotes and citations from various scientific and medical journals over the last ten years or so but what would be the point. You CHOOSE to not accept Homosexuality as anything but perverted because it frightens you for some reason.
Oh and just for the record, according to Freud that reason would likely be that you fear you ARE a homosexual yourself or that you have latent homosexual desires likely brought about because your mother was either too strong or too weak an influence in your childhood. THAT is what Freud was all about.
Of course Freud is being called pretty cooky these days so maybe he is as wrong about you and your reasons for your fear as he was about homosexuality being a perversion (or unnatural act even).

Colene Cobb of CA 4:17AM July 07, 2011

See Reason 6 of 17 in the online article "Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?" ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated ). It is evidence-based!
"The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual" by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm )
“…. All three great pioneers of psychiatry--Freud, Jung and Adler--saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion?
I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question.
Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective.
Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition.
Intellectual circles too--who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant--proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it "just doesn't seem right…. Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and
wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L. Spitzer, he replied: "the answer, as you suspected, is no".
Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem? .... ”

Roger of NY 2:45AM July 07, 2011

See Reason 13 of 17 in the online article "Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?" ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated ). It is evidence-based!
Here's the real deal about 4% of the population ... IT ALSO EXPLAINS why gay-advocacy will ... WITHOUT EXCEPTION ... always seek to control the health policy/legislation in activist states.
Homosexuality needs entire medical brigades to perpetuate its existence!
A Snapshot (CDC surveillance systems refers to men who have sex with men as “MSM”) (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf ) :
► MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
► MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
► While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
► MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals
and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
Where has the science changed? On what basis, exactly, are Cuomo and
Bloomberg basing their public-policy approach on this issue?
Given the facts, why institutionalize ... through ‘marriage” ... a behaviour with obvious/significant personal and social consequences?
After the very liberal Justice Kirby, good law should be based on good data, and the very least that legislators can do is to familiarize themselves with the details!

Roger of NJ 1:52AM July 07, 2011