Gay Marriage And Sad Marriage

[Magically, my not- yearned for post on Gay and Sad Marriage has reappeared from the nether world after a long trip through virtual space (with the assistance, I suppose, of those travelers through spatial worms, Lisa Randall and Stevie Hawkings.) I don't know how. Here it is.]

More and more Sads are coming out of the closet and confessing they don’t know why they ever objected to Gays marrying. Our friends over at PEW have given us the latest data.

Favor allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry legally: in 2004 31%; in 2008 39%; in April 2012 47%.
Oppose in 2004 60% – in 2008 51% – in April 2012 43%
Don’t know in 2004 9% – in 2008 10% – in April 2012 11%

Of course, Al, we have the anomaly of most states passing laws against Gay marriage but I am hoping one of our bright readers can explain that.

Sad marriage is, naturally enough, very sad. The divorce rate for those embarking on their first marriage runs from about 41% to 50%. After marrying for the second time, it climbs to 60% to 67%. For those in a third marriage, it is 74%. Why does it rise so much? Well, my guess is that people who divorce and remarry have gotten the hang of it. The trauma is gone. For those in a 7th marriage, divorce is easy as pie, emotionally speaking, and as certain as death and taxes.

Statistics also show that because most SADS believe in God, they don’t want extramarital sex. In fact, they don’t want sex. SADS are bewildered about the connection between love and marriage. Many of them still can be seen wandering through the streets singing the childish ballad, “Love and Marriage go together like a horse and carriage.” Tina Turner knew better and tried to show them the error of their ways.

Meanwhile, GAYS are having a hot time in the old town. Unconfirmed statistics (but good estimates, nevertheless) tell us that the average GAY has, in the course of his lifetime, about 1000 partners. Better yet, he is a fan of Tina Turner and doesn’t see what love has to do with IT. Most Gays in committed long term relationships still squeeze in at least 100 other partners on the side. For the SADS, this is darn infuriating.

When finally there are enough GAYS legally married, we will be better positioned to compare their divorce rates with those of SADS. For now, all I can say is that getting laid ain’t half the fun it could be.
Frankie –

Tina –

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. In 2010, many legislatures, especially in toss-up, low population states were captured by the G.O.P. They promptly enacted bans on gay marriage. The result is that a large number of states now have bans. Even if there had been any increases in popular support for the bans in those states, they had a minimal numerical impact on the national trend.

    In the less numerous, but more populous blue states, there was a significant gain in acceptance of gay marriage, and a few states like New York legalized it. This had a large numerical impact, illustrated by the statistics cited in the post, but not a concomitant impact on the percentage of pro-gay marriage state houses.

    Final result: more states — more acreage — banning gay marriage, although increasing numbers of Americans support it.

  2. A little late, but here:

    Apologies for the overly-long link. The answer to your anomaly is that most gay marriage bans were passed years ago, before opposition melted away, as it has done. According to the linked post, there are a number of states where such bans could not pass today, which means repeal is likely within a few more years. Their data has gay marriage with over 50% approval in 15 states, with 5 more likely to move to majority support this year.

  3. As of May 2012, with the passing of North Carolina’s gay marriage ban, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 30 via the state’s constitution. The remaining 8 states and D.C. allow same-sex marriage.

    Between 2004 and the present, the period the post cites as being one of greater acceptance of same-sex marriage, the number of state constitutional bans increased from 3 to 30. These data are available from Pew.

    So the bans are not old at all, unless you consider 2004-2008 old. It’s not as if the bans were instituted when homosexuality was considered sinful. Just the opposite. They were legislated when gays and lesbians became more integrated in society, and the right for them to marry each other became a contentious civil rights issue. So the landscape may simply be temporary, and not as anomalous as would appear. In time, maybe after a very long struggle such as Blacks endured, those rights will be written into law.

    It may be that the impetus for political action began after Massachussetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. But again, if you look at which states legislated bans, they are primarily red, and you will find that they are from the South, Midwest, and Mountain states — many being underpopulated. California’s ban (Proposition 8) is the big exception, but a Federal judge overturned it, and the matter awaits appeal.

    In the link that Matthew provides, much attention is paid to the polling methodology used to determine the extent to which same-sex marriage is accepted. Some readers of that article pointed out that respondents tend to give opinions which make them seem fair and honorable. Genuine support for SSM may breed Me-too-ism with pollsters which is not borne out at the ballot box.

    State-by-state accounting mathematically resembles the Electoral College: popular national vote and the sum of state outcomes may be contradictory.

  4. I just got notice from a Wiccan friend that early Christians celebrated same-sex marriages. There’s some evidence that Jesus officiated at one of these marriages; some time afterwards both these newly-weds were killed by enraged heteros. Jesus got his comeuppance later, as we know.

  5. Having looked at the data again, I see that there was a big upsurge in state bans between 2004-2008, not equaled in 2008-2012. So perhaps the earlier period was the old days when the SSM movement was not as strong as it is now, and the social conservatives struck while the iron was hot. Or maybe the rate of banning decreased because there were few states left to conquer. I think that the analyses of Matthew and his link, and mine, are both valid.

    My view on SSM is “evolving,” but if gays in committed relationships have 100 sex partners on the side, that turns me off. Will they make a sham of marriage as we know it, or will they cease their promiscuity because marriage is a super commitment?

  6. Every one of the 22 states that voted for McCain currently bans same sex marriage.* The average population ranking of these states, excluding Texas, is 31.2.** Therefore, the states, while numerous, do not greatly influence national preference polls conducted by such groups as PEW. This is especially true for a low-population state in which the difference between “for” and “against” is narrow.

    In high-population states like New York and New Jersey, which allow same sex unions, the influence on polling results is great.

    One very important caveat: I am not a statistician; I don’t know the methodology of the various polls. If the “weight” of a person’s response is somehow made inversely proportional to the population of his state, then all bets are off. I’m not about to read the fine print. I am assuming “one man-one vote” polling.

    None of this is meant to minimize the valuable insight provided by Matthew’s link.

    * There are only 8 states which voted for Obama and ban gay marriage.
    ** I had to research several sources, and the blog rules prevent me from listing all the links.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to receive new posts