The religious right mocks and belittles marriage

June 10, 2006

Guest Post by Morbo

Last week I criticized [tag]religious[/tag] [tag]right[/tag] activists for insisting that [tag]same-sex[/tag] unions somehow threaten [tag]heterosexual[/tag] [tag]marriage[/tag] and [tag]children[/tag]. If marriage is in trouble, I asserted, straight people have no one to blame but themselves. I don’t see a lot of evidence that [tag]gays[/tag] are busting up heterosexual [tag]marriage[/tag]s and consigning children to single-parent homes.

I pointed out that divorce is more of a threat to kids than [tag]same-sex marriage[/tag]. Given this, it’s fair to ask what religious group puts children most at risk by having high divorce rates. The answer might surprise you: born-again Christians. And which states threaten children by having high divorce rates? [tag]Bible-Belt[/tag] states.

With the defeat of the [tag]Federal Marriage Amendment[/tag] this week, it’s a good time to take a closer look at some interesting statistics. Back in 1999, evangelical pollster George Barna issued a shocking study pointing out that [tag]divorce[/tag] rates among [tag]born-again[/tag] [tag]Christians[/tag] are higher than among mainline Christian and non-religious groups.

Conservative Christians reacted to this finding in an odd way: They attacked [tag]Barna[/tag]. But Barna stuck to his guns, remarking:

“While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing…. [T]he high incidence of divorce within the [tag]Christian[/tag] community challenges the idea that [tag]churches[/tag] provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages.”

Studies have routinely shown that Bible-Belt states have the highest divorce rates in the nation.

Consider this excerpt from the Boston Globe, Oct. 31, 2004:

“The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US 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.”

Well isn’t that a kick in the head? The libs stay together while the right-wingers change marriage partners as if they were at a square dance. Seriously, why are we allowing these nimrods to lecture us on the sanctity of marriage for even one minute?

Just to be clear: I know that divorce is sometimes the only option for some couples. It is never an easy thing, and the couples who go through it deserve all the support they can get. My hat is off to those couples who work to keep a civil relationship post-divorce and try to minimize the disruption to their children.

I am merely saying this: If maintaining a two-parent home for the sake of children is a top priority of the religious right, the movement’s leaders would do better to direct their energies inward and work to lower the divorce rate among born-again Christians instead of bashing same-sex marriage.

I have scriptural authority for this. Consider Matthew 7:2-5, in which the big man himself, Jesus Christ, said: “For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”

Two answers to your confusion this morning, Morbo:

First, last, and always: IOKIYAR

Second: If gays can marry and stay together, that will show even more just how far away from Christ my life is, so I can’t allow that phenomenon to illuminate my hypocricy. [Besides, since I can ignore Christ’s admonition to care “…for these, the least of my Brethren…” I can ignore Christ’s admonition to “…love thy neighbor” too.]

It’s really quite simple: do as I say, not as I do.

In keeping with my usual decorum, I would label these people as Lying.Fucking.Hypocrites.

  • I think there is a very good argument to be made that same-sex marriage strengthens and lends hope for the future of marriage as an institution. Wingnut claims notwithstanding, heterosexuals continue to debase and devalue marriage through things like “Who Wants to Marry My Father?,” and “Wife Swap,” through high divorce rates and sickening abuse rates. A smaller percentage get married now than in decades past.

    If homosexuals want to get married, clamor for the institution, perhaps they can remind heterosexuals what is good and desirable about marriage, perhaps gays can lead a movement back to the enbrace of the institution of marriage that will not destroy marriage but instead will be its salvation, drive the percentage of committed couples who choose marriage back up.

    There are a lot of issues on which I can honestly see both sides, but it just gets harder and harder to fathom the right-wing opposition to gay marriage (or, more accurately, gay civil union. I, like many others here have expressed, have long believed the state should only be involved in civil unions – heterosexual or homosexual – and churches should handle marriage as they please).

  • As far as the state is concerned, marriage should be nothing more than a legal contract defining certain rights and responsibilities. (It should mean much more than that to the people involved, of course.) And any church should have the right to solemnize whatever “marriages” it chooses.

  • It’s worth noting that the one state in which gay marriage is currently allowed, Massachusetts, also has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Perhaps gay marriage is good for heterosexual marriage.

  • Whenever I hear that red states have higher divorce rates than blue, I wonder which is the cause and which is the effect.

    Divorce has all kinds of negative social effects, especially for women and children. If a region, for whatever reason, has a higher incidence of divorce, might it be that people who live there get more militant about “family values”? For them, family dysfunction is a more real, more imminent danger…so they’re more likely to overreact than people in less turbulent areas. They feel besieged, and anything can become a threat to “the family.”

    Like most overreactions, this just makes things worse. They’re so afraid of teen pregnancies leading to bad marriages, for example, that they fight sex education…which leads to teen pregnancies and bad marriages. The result: more messed-up families. More social tension. More overreaction.

    So do “conservative values” lead to dysfunctional families, or do dysfunctional families lead to conservative values? Or is it a vicious circle? And if so, how do you break it?

  • Hubby and I went to Vancouver, BC, and got legally hitched on May 14, 2004. We’ve celebrated our 2nd anniversary as a legally married couple, but also recognize our preferred anniversary date of 1/4/1992, which means that we’re going on our 15th anniversary in a few short months (hurricane season not withstanding, since we live in the Ft. Lauderdale area of Florida). Hubby works with the DCF, prosecuting abusive parents of children; I work for a staffing placement company–trying to find people jobs.

    That being said, we probably won’t have legal standing to challenge Florida’s laws against same-sex marriage until one of of dies, since FL does not have an income tax (only a sales tax) and estate taxes don’t come into play until one of the spouses dies. Being a “snowbird” destination, FL recognizes Canadian marriages, but I doubt that they will recognize ours. No divorce plans in the foreseeable future, but stay tuned. I’ve already contacted LAMBDA and the ACLU to see if we can be a test case for anything.

  • Having had some experience with the genre, I’d be willing to bet that a big reason that the divorce rate is so high among born-agains and in Bible-belt states is the attitude of the husbands towards the wives.

    To those who claim to follow a strict interpretation of the Bible, women are little more than chattels to the men, property to meekly obey and be subservient to the menfolk. Depending on the man, this can mean a stifling, semi-abusive lifestyle (or worse) for the woman, and in this day and age who is going to put up with that for very long?

    Personally, I admire strong, creative women and despise anyone who would keep them down in any way or prevent them from reaching their full potential as fully equal, and in many cases superior, human beings.

    And to anyone who suggests to me that “it’s God’s will that they submit to man,” I can find you a brand new place to store your Bible, if you get my drift.

  • I’ve often wondered how the religious right deals with Bible verses such as Genesis 19 (RSV) – here all the men of Soddom call out to Lot “Where are the men [strangers] who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them [sexually].” Lot responded: “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” Later on (about verse 30 and after), Lot’s wife having been turned to salt by a loving Yahweh, Lot lived in a cave with his two daughters whom he got pregnant.

    Then there’s Judges 19:22 – “As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, ‘Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him'” It continues “‘Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing.’ But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go.” It cotinues toward the happy ending: “And when he entered his house, he took a knife, and laying hold of his concubine he divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel.”

    Does this sound religious to you?

  • I blame the “country music” lifestyle. Country music is all about two things: drinkin’, and cheatin’. I suppose it reflects the gritty reality of bible-belt life just as gangsta rap reflects the gritty realities of the inner city: exaggerated for effect and for commercial sensationalism, but not that far from the truth.

    The drinkin’ and cheatin’ is a vicious cycle. If you’re a-drinkin’, pretty soon, you’re gonna be a-cheatin’. And, if you’re a-cheatin’, someone’s gonna be a-drinkin’ soon: drowning their sorrows, preferably with country music a-playin’ on the jukebox. And, after enough drinkin’, the cheatin’ starts anew. It’s a cycle.

    All smart-arsery aside, I seriously suspect that alcoholism and drug addiction are a huge factor in both the violence rate and the divorce rate, in both country-music and rap-music areas. I agree that cause/effect is hard to tease out here though: do the substances cause the divorce, or the divorce cause the substances, or both?

    As for ultimate cause of all these social ills: I’m gonna agree with Marx and assert that it’s economic in basis. In Blue states we have a social safety net (*ahem*– Red states like TX and FL don’t even have a fucking income tax!), and middle class folks don’t slide– or not as far– into poverty. There are also many, many more work opportunities for both men and women of all classes in Blue, urban areas– much more so than in rural or heavily-suburban areas. Blue states are the economic engine of this country; if you live in one you’re much, much more likely to find work, regardless of your gender, creed, race, politics, or ethnicity.

    Women who have career opportunities are less likely to be forced to marry very young for their own financial survival: like it was in “the old days” that right-wingers long for so wistfully. People who marry later make better choices as well as having their own financial shit together– thus avoiding many of the tremendous marriage-straining stresses of financial woes or significant incompatibilities.

    I lived in Texas for a few years, after growing up in NYC and Los Angeles, and I gotta tell you I’d never before or since seen so many single 24-year-old women toting around multiple little kids. They marry young in Texas, right out of high school, and start poppin’ out babies ASAP. In the suburbs of San Francisco, my fellow parents of preschoolers are all in our late 30’s or early 40’s.

    Sadly, these Red/Blue comparisons still apply mostly to the suburbs and more middle-class areas of cities; racism is still as much a factor in the inner-city areas of Blue states as it is in rural areas of Red states, as reflected by the divorce and violence rates there.

  • Hella good post Morbo. “Why are we allowing these nimrods to lecture us” indeed.

  • dammit!!! i live in a blue state and i’m gay… i’ve been slacking on my “divorce quota”… that’s why those numbers are skewed. the red state gays are just doing a better job of adhering to the mandates (no pun intended 😉 of the gay agenda! time for me to put all my other goals on hold and focus on “causing” some of the straight folks i know to get d-i-v-o-r-c-e’d 😉

  • this reminds me of the joke from Garrison Keillor:

    “Unitarians don’t recognize the Holy Trinity in much the same way that Southern Baptists don’t recognize each other at the liquor store.”

  • Studies have routinely shown that Bible-Belt states have the highest divorce rates in the nation.
    The question is “How did these states earn the name “Bible Belt”?
    Secondly, is this in individual states compared with other states, or is this a regional stat compared with other regions.
    I guess what I’m saying is, you’re not saying much…

  • I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the average age of first marriage is much younger in the Bible Belt than in the Northeast, which perhaps contributes to the higher divorce rate later in life. I wonder, though, what the average rate of marriage between the regions is? I would also not be surprised to find that people are less inclined to get married in the liberal states, and more willing to live together outside of marriage, in which case the higher divorce rate in the Bible Belt could be misleading.

  • Ed, if there were a better illustration of the “Biblical” conception of women as a man’s property, I don’t know what it would be. Truly, truly evil.

  • You are acting as if protecting marriage was really their motivation. This is actually just window-dressing for old-fashioned bigotry and minority-bashing.

    There is a huge constituency, apparently, who can be won by triggering their knee-jerk homophobia. So these religious and political figures might or might not be anti-gay, but either way they have no problem serving their own interests at the expense of homosexuals.

  • White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic

    Connecticut 76% 10% 10% Alabama 69% 26% 2%
    Massachusetts 80% 7% 8% Texas 50% 11% 34%
    Maine 96% 1% 1% S. Carolina 66% 29% 3%
    Vermont 96% 1% 1% Oklahoma 73% 8% 6%
    New Hampshire 94% 1% 2% North Carolina 69% 21% 6%
    New Jersey 64% 14% 14% Mississippi 60% 37% 2%
    New York 61% 17% 16% Georgia 60% 30% 7%
    Pennyslvania 82% 10% 4% Florida 63% 16% 19%
    Rhode Island 80% 6% 10% Arizona 61% 4% 28%
    Arkansas 77% 16% 4%
    81% 7% 7%
    65% 20% 11%

    Sorry for the formatting problems, but since the % of blacks and hispanics in the South are higher, should we say that the morality problems are due to minorities? Or would that just be a partisan attempt to knee-jerk a reaction to some lousy stats?

    • Comments are closed.