Associated Press celebrates the five-year anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:
According to the latest state figures, [from May 2004] through September 2008, there had been 12,167 same-sex marriages in Massachusetts — 64 percent of them between women — out of 170,209 marriages in all
.No figures are cited on gay divorce, of course. If you read the 2,700-word story, you will see that AP reporter David Crary tells a sunshine-on-a-cloudless-day tale, elaborated with picturesque anecdotes about wonderful couples.
Crary won second place in the 2006 National Lesbian & Gay Journalist Association competition. This year, he’s going for No. 1, baby!
I would very much like to be able to compare state-by-state marriage data to demonstrate that Massachusetts has one of the lowest marriage rates, and one of the lowest birth rates, in the United States. Unfortunately, as the NCHS bluntly admits, the federal government stopped providing even a semblance of comprensive data on marriage and divorce more than a decade ago.
However, birth data continue to be collected, so let’s look at the 2003 total fertility rate for Massachusetts, as well as four other states — Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine — that have legalized same-sex marriage, as well as New Hampshire, where legislation is currently awaiting the governor’s signature.
Massachusetts……1.74
Connecticut……….1.92
Iowa…………………1.99
Vermont……………1.68
Maine……………….1.75
New Hampshire…1.77
You see that in none of these states is the total fertility rate at or above the 2.1 average lifetime births per woman necessary to prevent demographic decline. Now, let’s look at the states with the highest fertility rates:
Utah………………2.57
Arizona…………..2.39
Alaska…………….2.37
Texas…………….2.35
Idaho…………….2.32
The fertility rate in Utah is 53% higher than the rate in Vermont, and the rate in Idaho is 33% higher than the rate in Massachusetts.
My point is that the popularity of same-sex marriage is strongly associated with low fertility rates. If adequate state-by-state data were available, I’m sure you’d see a similar association with low marriage rates.
Don’t mistake the direction of causality, however: The decline of the traditional family caused the rise of same-sex marriage, and not vice-versa. It was America’s embrace of the Contraceptive Culture — detroying the natural connection between love, sex, marriage and parenthood — that has made possible the radical triumph.
Gays did not do this. It was the God-haters, with the help of self-righteous fools who claimed to be religious even while they disobeyed one of God’s original commandments: “Be fruitful and multiply.” They thought they could embrace the Planned Parenthood lifestyle without consequence.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .”
— Romans 1:22 KJV
Mother’s Day, the Planned Parenthood way! Declining birth rates mean an aging population. One of these days, we’ll all be as gay — and gray — as Massachusetts, and they’ll call that “progress.”
UPDATE: Pundette says, “Move over, Mark Steyn.” No, no, Pundette. It’s more like, “Please link me, Mark Steyn!” BTW, Pundette is a mother of seven, and has an excellent Mother’s Day linkfest round-up.
UPDATE II: Linked at Creative Minority Report and by Dad 29, who notes that my pro-natalist traditionalism is unusual for a Protestant. I get this all the time, as does Mark Steyn, who is Jewish and, indeed, one will find that nearly all Muslims share a similar attitude. (Dinesh D’Souza caught holy hell a couple years ago for a book in which he suggested that the Muslim world’s anti-American rage is a reaction to the decadence of Western pop culture.)
The feminist-infested progressive Left would doubtless characterize this ecumenical pro-natalism as a function of the patriarchal phallocratic desire to oppress The Sisterhood. Rather, I think what accounts for the similarity of perspective is a skepticism toward the truth-claims of modernism. Confronted by the arrogant assertions of the elite consensus, from which dissent is forbidden, we skeptics detect the unmistakable aroma of bovine excrement.
The disciples of Progress look at tradition — including the traditional belief that a large family is a blessing — and see everything they despise as obsolete and unjust. The traditionalist agrees with G.K. Chesterton:
My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.
Once an intelligent person begins to question Progress in this way, once he starts wondering whether everything old is bad and everything new is better, he will soon discover evidence that contradicts the modernist truth-claims. At that point, he is likely to become a full-blown reactionary and, unless counseled by men of reason whom he respects, will soon be arguing for the divine right of kings or some other embarrassing anachronism. (The informed reader will smile in recognition of the hint of autobiography here.)
Extremism of one form or another — and Osama bin Laden will suffice as an example — is too often the result of the traditionalist’s resentment of modernist arrogance. Being a Bible-thumping hillbilly myself, I have sometimes thought the Islamic radicals have the better of the argument with their “moderate” antagonists within the Muslim world. If the Koran is true, if Muhammad was a divine Prophet who spoke on behalf of the Almighty, then jihad against the infidels is the True Faith.
But please note the hypothetical; I certainly do not accept that Mohammed was an agent of divinity, except in the sense that the Babylonian conquest was an act of God. The Israelites were God’s chosen people, but disobeyed him, and the Babylonian armies were thus the temporal means of chastisement. In the same way, one might say that the errors and unfaithfulness of the 6th-century church inspired Muhammad’s ignorant anti-Christian theology, which from its beginnings in a rebellion of Arab tribesmen, advanced thence by conquest until at last Christendom rallied.
Students of history will find that the Christian world did not defeat the Ottoman Empire (in the 1683 Battle of Vienna) until after Martin Luther had struck the spark of Christian reform. Make of this what you will. The relevant point here, however, is that any crisis or tribulation suffered by Christendom must be seen as the chastisement of human failing, a call to greater faith and greater obedience to God’s commandments.
God will not abandon us, if we are faithful and obedient, but if He desires to call us to repentance, He will work through means at hand, and we must pay attention to understand wherein we have failed.
PREVIOUSLY:
Smitty1e's Blog 