DOMA | Gay Marriage | Massachusetts | News | Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow: Gay Marriage Saving Marriage in Massachusetts

Maddow

Rachel Maddow points out that since gay people started getting married in Massachusetts five years ago, divorce rates have descended to pre-1940 levels.

Says Maddow: "Turns out gay marriage is a 'defense of marriage' act."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I LOVE IT!

    Posted by: MT | Sep 4, 2009 8:45:43 AM


  2. I'd marry Rachel...if we weren't both gay and of opposite gender.

    Posted by: SteveH | Sep 4, 2009 9:06:14 AM


  3. Rachel makes this gay boy's heart sing

    Posted by: Christopher | Sep 4, 2009 9:41:29 AM


  4. Awesome! They should air this in Maine.

    Posted by: David in Houston | Sep 4, 2009 9:52:54 AM


  5. Haha
    Love Rachel!

    Posted by: sparks | Sep 4, 2009 9:57:31 AM


  6. Did Maggie Gallagher, Pat Buchanan, and Rick Santorum's heads explode yet?

    Posted by: Ben | Sep 4, 2009 10:10:39 AM


  7. Well when you have to fight for something so hard you tend to cherish it a little more. Also remember when a state finally gets marriage equality who do you usually see getting married first? It is that couple that has already been together 10, 15, 20 years and just now can make it legal. Which means there relationship already withstood the test of time.

    I have a feeling that once we have a generation of gays being born where marriage equality is the norm, they will be just as casual about marriage as straights.

    Posted by: kujhawker | Sep 4, 2009 10:30:58 AM


  8. As much as I support gay marriage, I must point out that correlation does not imply causation, which is the first thing you learn in statistics. We can't jump to conclusions like those right-wing crackheads...

    Posted by: <3 for all | Sep 4, 2009 10:42:14 AM


  9. @Ben, no they're just going to quietly have a case of amnesia.

    Posted by: Doug | Sep 4, 2009 10:46:18 AM


  10. the nightly 1-2 punch of Olbermann and Maddow is the best thing on TV. period. now if my old fellow Vassar grad Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC would just give the boot to Scarborough and his sycophant sidekick Mika, we'd all be better off.

    Posted by: casey | Sep 4, 2009 10:55:23 AM


  11. The stats on divorce alone are meaningless. Have out of wedlock births increased? Cohabitation? Single parenthood? Multiple fathers, same mother? The gangsters against us will use the whole picture to blame us for stuff that is not our fault.

    Posted by: Gus | Sep 4, 2009 11:05:55 AM


  12. Box turtles! Box turtles!

    Posted by: LD | Sep 4, 2009 11:06:09 AM


  13. i love the vid clips thx a lot

    Posted by: debt relief | Sep 4, 2009 12:16:16 PM


  14. Gay is the way!

    Posted by: Bill | Sep 4, 2009 12:25:23 PM


  15. @Ben above.....Maggie's head can't explode due to that heinous wig and the 2 quarts of Auquanet spray holding it together....

    Posted by: Beef and Fur | Sep 4, 2009 12:30:11 PM


  16. @<3 for all

    I don't believe any one was SERIOUSLY claiming that gay marriage was the CAUSE of the lower divorce rate, only that the sky didn't fall in and people didn't start marrying goats as organizations like NOM claimed it would.

    Posted by: Gregus | Sep 4, 2009 12:41:54 PM


  17. In the 1970s, feminists cheerily told everyone that women can raise kids without men. It took decades before adequate statistics began to show that kids raised by single mothers are more prone to every kind of social problem. It's something like 75 or 80% of male prisoners were raised by single mothers. Young men need fathers....and mothers. Girls need mothers and fathers.

    Divorces are down in Massachussets? Great. But how many people in Massachusetts got married in 2008? Is the marriage rate holding steady? Is the birth rate holding steady? No. These figures are DECLINING in Massachussets, and they are declining faster than in other places in the country. Less and less people are marrying and less and less are having kids. Where will these figures be in ten years?

    Rachel's gleeful verdict is premature and she used a false metric to declare victory.

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 4, 2009 1:10:58 PM


  18. Let's just say that there is no evidence that the situation has gotten worse.

    Posted by: anon | Sep 4, 2009 1:18:42 PM


  19. @Rick

    Yep, because gay marriage *makes* people gay. Also, if gay people can marry, straight people will clearly just stop getting married, stop fucking, and stop making babies.

    That makes *total* sense.

    Posted by: Gregus | Sep 4, 2009 1:57:14 PM


  20. I'd just like to point out that the received wisdom on social problems being caused by single mothers is not so cut-and-dry. The OECD has just published a report:

    "Overall, the general thrust of these more focused methodologies is that the causal effects of being raised in a single-parent family are smaller than hitherto believed, or even zero."

    The report quotes research which states that:

    "[T]here is currently no unambiguous proof that growing up in a lone-parent family has adverse effects for later-life outcomes".

    http://www.oecd.org/document/12/0,3343,en_2649_34819_43545036_1_1_1_37419,00.html">

    Posted by: Graham Anderson | Sep 4, 2009 2:54:45 PM


  21. Gregus:

    My point is that we won't know for a long time what the effect of gay marriage will be.

    For the past fifteen years gay men have achieved more and more visibility. Gay culture and the gay aesthetic are everywhere. Will and Grace, Queer Eye, Sex and the City (Michael Patrick King, Darren Star), Abercrombie ads, fashion ads in general, and generally favorable reporting from MSM news outlets.

    Has this had an effect on straight people? Absolutely, "Knocked Up", "Role Models", "My Name Is Earl", "Wedding Crashers"... almost everywhere in the culture you see men rejecting anything gayish and putting up slobby, homophobic, ne'er-do-well as the male archetype.

    You needn't be against gay marraige to worry that it might adversely affect the broader culture. A straight man may very well look at a gay married couple and have a less positive view of marriage. However bigoted he may be, that would be bad for us all.

    I doubt it will have no effect.

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 4, 2009 3:51:32 PM


  22. Rachel is a joke. She is a completely biased, smug left wing lunatic who could use a strong dose of humility.

    Don't get me wrong ladies, I'm sure that she is very bright, but the far left is just as bad as the far right.

    Posted by: Dave | Sep 4, 2009 3:56:53 PM


  23. Graham Anderson: Will look at that article, but with a high degree of skepticism.

    I've never heaerd of the OECD. It looks like a liberally-minded organization. The mission statement on its website seems strangely broad:

    OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:

    "OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:

    Support sustainable economic growth
    Boost employment
    Raise living standards
    Maintain financial stability
    Assist other countries' economic development
    Contribute to growth in world trade"

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 4, 2009 3:58:24 PM


  24. Dave, she has a point of view. So does almost everyone on cable. Listen to her interviews of right-wing conservatives, though. She's tough in ways that Tim Russert never would have been - beyond the "gotcha" games. That's good. She's also highly respectful, won't talk over her guests and will let them say whatever they've come onto the show to say. In essence, she let's them hang themselves.

    Whatever her point of view, she's a brilliant interviewer who's extremely intelligent and tough on everyone. We haven't had that on paid TV for years. The only place you could get that was PBS. She's very different from the right wing shows, though, because she DOES let her guests speak, she DOES respect them (even the worst of them) and she DOES let them get their points across, without trying to sidetrack them or make them look bad. If they're to look bad, it's because they made themselves look bad. That's the genius of her show and that's why it's so incredibly different than anything on the right wing (and even the left... I love her show a helluva lot more than I like Olberman, for example).

    Posted by: Ryan | Sep 4, 2009 4:28:46 PM


  25. @ Rick

    I think you made a ridiculous statistical claim... I'd like you to verify it.

    Also, just because you have never heard of something is not a reason to invalidate something.

    And also, Maddow may have a left-leaning point of view but what others say is true. She puts on a great show and she'll go far for it. I saw her interview Tom Ridge and she didn't pull any punches yet also remained very respectful and professional, allowing him to say his points and have opportunities for rebuttal.

    Posted by: Matt | Sep 4, 2009 5:51:45 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Harvey Milk Day Passes Assembly, Faces Potential Veto Again« «