How red staters live

The Christian Science Monitor (of all places) has a column about how those conservative Christian “family values” types actually live compared to blue folks (via Fannie):

… According to a new federal study, women with a college education are much more likely to be married than are women who have never graduated from high school. And men and women who married after the age of 25 have lower divorce rates than couples who were married at younger ages.

We could have predicted these results. The US family system, which once differed little by class or region, has become a marker of race, culture, and religion. A new “blue” family paradigm has handsomely rewarded those who invest in women’s as well as men’s education and defer childbearing until the couple is better established. These families, concentrated in urban areas and the coasts, have seen their divorce rates fall back to the level of the 1960s, incomes rise, and nonmarital births remain rare. With later marriage has also come greater stability and less divorce.

[...]

Difficulties in the “red” world, meanwhile, have grown worse. Traditionalists continue to advocate abstinence until marriage and bans on abortion. They’ve said an emphatic “no” to the practices that have made the new “blue” system workable.

Yet, paradoxically, as sociologist Brad Wilcox reports, evangelical Protestant teens have sex at slightly earlier ages on average than their nonevangelical peers (respectively, 16.38 years old versus 16.52 years old), evangelical Protestant couples are also slightly more likely to divorce than nonevangelical couples, and evangelical mothers are actually more likely to work full time outside the home than their nonevangelical peers…. (my emphasis in all cases)

Clearly, if anyone is going against the “traditional” family, it’s red staters. Also clear is how those godless, immoral blue staters are destroying marriage by having sex later and divorcing less. Absolutely no one is preventing conservative Christians from living the lifestyles they advocate; but if you don’t do what you tell others to do, the term for what you’re doing is hypocrisy.

This also shows the nonsense and hypocrisy of “family values” politicians. First of all, shouldn’t you get family values from your family? Why would you want to get it from the government?  This doesn’t mean that non–Republicans are exempt from criticism, but if you campaign on a “family values” platform but don’t actually live like you tell others to, it makes your hypocrisy worse.

All in all, it’s clear that Republican policies and lifestyles don’t protect “family values”. Instead, they just trap people in poverty, promote the very things they claim to stand against, and worse. Conservatives, evangelicals, and red staters are the real enemies in the war on marriage and the family.

A dialogue on marriage

Person #1, someone who is average and ordinary: “I just heard that Congress has passed a new law about marriage.”

Person #2, an ignorant, bigoted wingnut: “What about marriage?”

P1: “The law is changing which marriages are officially recognized by the government. From now on, only religious Hindu marriages will be recognized. As for everyone else, they will have to give up the hundreds of benefits of marriage while they and their so–called ‘spouses’ in their so–called ‘marriages’ are being considered total strangers by the government.”

P2: “This is an outrage. It’s persecuting Christians. How dare the government prevent me from getting married.”

P1: “You’re not prevented from getting married. You see, religion is a choice. You have just made the wrong one and have to change. You see, absolutely nothing is preventing you from converting to Hinduism and undergoing a Hindu wedding ceremony. You are still able to get married, you just have to become a Hindu and go through the appropriate ceremony.”

P2: “It does not follow that making a certain choice means it is right to ban certain groups from getting married.”

P1: “But my dear bigoted wingnut, you’ve made the same argument the government is making in order to argue against same–sex marriage. You see, you claim (incorrectly) that sexual orientation is a choice, and that therefore the government shouldn’t make ‘special rights’ because of people’s choices. And yet you are here demanding special rights because of your choices. Basically, the government’s acting the same way you do against same–sex marriage.”

You have to see this

Tetrapod Zoology has a photograph that disproves intelligent design: a babirusa with a canine tooth impaling its skull. An “intelligent designer” wouldn’t do this.

International Women’s Day

Today, March 8, is International Women’s Day. I thought I’d mark the occasion by getting to the point quickly:

WOMEN ARE PEOPLE

And that, dear readers, is feminism in three words.

New lyrics for O Canada?

In a surprise move, in yesterday’s throne speech, the government proposed reviewing the lyrics of our national anthem, O Canada, in order to make them more gender–neutral.

An informal survey of the blogosphere seems to indicate that there are other national concerns that should take priority. My view is similar: I have no objections to changing the lyrics to make them more inclusive, but there are more pressing concerns that should be handled first. Perhaps there would be more time if Parliament wasn’t prorogued all the time…

And speaking of O Canada, did you know that the original English poem (not the anthem, there are no other verses) has additional verses?

O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western Sea,
Thou land of hope for all who toil!
Thou True North, strong and free!
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies
May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise,
To keep thee steadfast through the years
From East to Western Sea,
Our own beloved native land!
Our True North, strong and free!
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Update (2010-03-04): Cancel that. No changes are happening.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: