Are Republicans Happier in Their Marriages Than Democrats?

Republicans are happier and more stable in their marriages than Democrats, according to a study released Monday.

W. Bradford Wilcox, a prominent sociologist at the University of Virginia, released the analysis finding that Republicans are more often married, less likely to be divorced, and happier in their marriages than Democrats.

Forty percent of Democrats between the ages of 20 and 60 are currently married versus 57 percent of Republicans in the same age range, according to evaluation of the national General Social Survey.

Among Democrats who have previously married, 47 percent have been divorced compared to 41 percent of Republicans who have previously married.

Wilcox said this is potentially because Republicans are more likely to embrace a “marriage-mindset,” which views marriage as the best way to “anchor” a relationship and a family. He said this mindset also emphasizes marriage as a binding commitment, which makes people more likely to invest themselves into the institution.

“If you value an institution and if you value a relationship, you’re more likely to give that person and institution the benefit of the doubt,” he said.

Wilcox and his co-author Nicholas Wolfinger also explored marital quality, finding that among those who are married, 67 percent of Republicans say they are “very happy” in their marriages. Sixty percent of Democrats say the same, marking a seven-point gap.

This disparity shrank to 3 percent when the researchers controlled for demographic and cultural differences between each party.

>>> Index of Culture and Opportunity: Social and Economic Trends That Shape America

White and religious Americans, who are more likely to identify as Republicans, were also more likely to report they are “very happy” in their marriages. Education did not play a significant role.

Wilcox and Wolfinger wrote in their report for the Institute for Family Studies that while race and religiosity account for more than half of the “Republican advantage” in marital quality, the remainder may be explained through attitudes.

“Perhaps Republicans are more optimistic, more charitable, or more inclined to look at their marriages through rose-colored glasses,” they wrote.

Wilcox said this blend of optimism and charity along with the tendency of conservatives to view marriage more favorably could explain why Republicans perceive their marriages more positively.

Wilcox said he began investigating the link between partisanship and marriage following the rise of the 2010 book “Red Families v. Blue Families,” which argued that blue regions cultivate stronger and more stable families because of liberal emphasis on education and the tendency to delay marriage and parenthood, all of which are linked to lower divorce rates.

Wilcox said his study shows that the “presumption” that blue families are stronger and more stable “doesn’t hold water in many important respects” and, in fact, “suggests the contrary.”

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

Proposed Law Would Strip Words ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ from Federal Code

(CNSNews.com) – Last week, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced a bill that would remove the words “husband” and “wife” from the language used in federal law – a move that had drawn ire from faith leaders and family advocacy groups that see this legislation as expected fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

“It is as if a collective madness has settled over our nation's elite and they are trying hard to bring everyone under the same cloud of confusion,” Bishop E.W. Jackson, president of STAND (Staying True to America’s National Destiny), told CNSNews.com. “They can change 1,000 laws and 10,000 dictionaries.

“Marriage was, is and always will be only a union between one man and one woman,” Jackson said. “If the emperor has no clothes, it matters not that the whole world compliments him on his outfit.

“Perceptions change, but reality remains the same,” he added. “I will oppose any effort to sanitize our legal system of the words husband and wife.”

“Redefining the terminology in marriage now of ‘husband and wife’ proves that the gay lobby is only out to completely destroy marriage between one (naturally born) man and one (naturally born) woman,” Sam Rohrer, president of the American Pastors Network, told CNSNews.com. “If everything that marriage represents is eliminated, including the language, why did they not just settle for civil unions? 

“Instead, they pushed for marriage redefinition and will continue to push until marriage as we once knew it is completely unrecognizable,” Rohrer said. “There is nothing equal between a man and a woman getting married, and two homosexual men or two lesbian women getting married. 

“Nothing they ever do will ever make that so. Therefore, they want to entirely destroy it,” Rohrer said.

“It's unnecessary for Congress to vote to endorse the court's ruling when many members believe the court engaged in judicial activism, which removed the ability of states and citizens to debate and decide marriage policy,” David Christensen, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council told CNSNews.com.

“The real need is for Congress to pass a law to prevent the federal government from discriminating against individuals and entities, those who believe marriage is between one man and woman one,” Christensen said.

“While court-created same-sex marriage is the new legal definition, charities shouldn't lose government contracts while helping the poor, or non-profits lose their tax-exempt status, which will unfairly punish many who continue to believe in natural marriage,” Christensen said.

Capps wrote on her congressional website about sponsoring the bill – the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015, which was introduced on July 8 and has been referred to committee -- that the legislation was inspired by the SCOTUS 5-4 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. The bill has 23 co-sponsors.

“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015 would strike the use of gendered terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from the federal code and replace them with more gender-neutral terms, such as ‘spouse’ or ‘married couple,’” Capps’ website states.

“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said of her bill. “Our values as a country are reflected in our laws.

“I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages,” Capps said.

Capps’ website states: “The proposed legislation would not only ensure that the code reflects marriage equality, but it could also make several positive changes to the U.S. Code by removing areas of gender discrimination written into federal law.

“For instance, it is currently illegal to threaten the President’s wife – but not the President’s husband. Capps’ bill would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the President’s spouse. The bill would correct a number of these types of discrepancies in the code,” it added.

“Where will the assault on biblical marriage end?” Rev. Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said in a recent post on his Facebook page. “Now liberal politicians in California want to ban the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from being used in federal law.

“They say these are ‘gendered terms’ that discriminate against homosexuals,” Graham said. “You’re absolutely right they are gendered terms—because marriage was created to be gendered!

“The One who created marriage defined it as between a man and a woman,” Graham said. “They have already succeeded in deleting husband and wife from California law last year, now they want to take it to the national level.

“This is shameful,” Graham said.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] MSNBC analyst: ObamaCare will save marriages, or something

Hey. what’s another ridiculous ObamaCare promise on top of all the others that have collapsed?  MSNBC analyst Goldie Taylor embodied the magical thinking behind the ACA as cost-saving reform by telling Al Sharpton that the law will make American marriages happier because it will save money, which is the biggest driver of divorces, which means that Democrats are the “party of families.”

Yeah, it doesn’t really get any more coherent than that:

Actually, Andrew Johnson points out, the incentives built into the law promote divorce:

To illustrate, let’s start with the 60-year-old married couple with no children …

If they have identical earnings totaling $65,000, which will usually net down to $50,000 or below after all income and payroll taxes, their Obamacare exchange Silver Plan premium next year with the same earnings will be $16,382, or about one-third of what used to be their take-home pay. (And they call it the “Affordable Care Act”?)

What can this couple do? Well, they could decide to earn a few thousand dollars less, which will negate the five-figure premium hit. Encouraging ordinarily willing workers to put in less effort isn’t good in any economy, but especially not this one. But if either spouse’s earnings are unpredictable or hard to precisely track, they could still “mess up” and get socked with a premium they can’t afford.

The “easiest” solution would be to avoid the “wedding tax” entirely by getting divorced while still living together. … Instead of facing an exorbitant premium increase once their combined earnings hits $62,041 if they were to stay married, each cohabiting adult can earn up to $45,960 before Obamacare’s “tax credit”-free premiums kick in. Their annual after-tax savings at age 60 if they shack up and keep their individual earnings between $31,021 and $45,960 will range from $7,650 to over $11,000. The annual savings will slightly increase every year until Medicare kicks in at age 65. That kind of money can buy a lot of gifts for the grandkids.

Via: Hot Air
Continue Reading....