New California Divorce Stats for 2005 Are In!

[Lee R.]

3% increase to 155,600:

http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1148964854&page=1#1148964854

[Drifter]

155,600!

So assuming the number of marriages stays the same as 2004 - 172,302.

155,600 / 172,302 * 100 = 90.3%

[zarby]

Wow.

When the number of divorces nearly equal the number of marriages, there is a real problem. One can debate these numbers and what they really mean but one thing for sure is that it is not good for the institution of marriage.

[TheManOnTheStreet]

OF course, if you subtract all the marriages/divorces in hollywierd, that number is about half.

TMOTS

[Morgri]

Dang, i'm glad i'm not in California, but... that's really sad...

[Lee R.]

155,600!

So assuming the number of marriages stays the same as 2004 - 172,302.

155,600 / 172,302 * 100 = 90.3%

The CDC has restated the aggregate marriage numbers for the U.S. for 2003, 2004 and 2005.  A large portion of this seems to have come from California, which appeared to have undercounted those years by {are you ready for this?} 50,000 in 2004, 22,000 in 2003 and 16,000 in 2005.

If I use the CDC stats as the official tally, then I must accept this.

But c'mon - undercounting by 25%?!?

I need to take some time to do a side-by-side with what the numbers were tracking to, and what they are now adjusted to.  Rough guess is 2005 was tracking towards 186,000 to 195,000.

So the official divorce rate is closer to 70%.  What an improvement!  Still catastrophically bad.

And it's not due to Hollywood divorces - this is from normal people divorcing in L.A. county (~39,000/year).

I suspect that the CDC is going to adjust the marriage numbers so that they drop for several years, then get popped up due to 'undercounting'.  They then drop again, and are popped up again, ad infinitum.

[dr e]

Can you explain how you are getting this figure?

So the official divorce rate is closer to 70%. What an improvement! Still catastrophically bad.

If the divorces in any given year outnumber the marriages for that particular year that doesn't tell the whole story.  How many marriages from previous years are still intact and functioning?  The question is what percentage of the functioning marriages are ending in divorce.  If you have some way to figure that I would be interested in seeing it.

No matter what way you cut it this is just more data that shows the feminists are winning.  This is exactly what they want.

[Lee R.]

Can you explain how you are getting this figure?

So the official divorce rate is closer to 70%. What an improvement! Still catastrophically bad.

If the divorces in any given year outnumber the marriages for that particular year that doesn't tell the whole story.  How many marriages from previous years are still intact and functioning?  The question is what percentage of the functioning marriages are ending in divorce.  If you have some way to figure that I would be interested in seeing it.

No matter what way you cut it this is just more data that shows the feminists are winning.  This is exactly what they want.

I take the California Judicial Yearly Court Statistics for Family Court, sum the dissolutions, separations and nullifications, and divide that number by the CDC number of marriages for that year.

How many marriages from previous years are still intact and functioning?  The question is what percentage of the functioning marriages are ending in divorce.

This has never been measured for individual states.  The data has never been collected, the numbers don't exist.  The CDC's best estimate along those lines is that 43% of people will experience divorce.

[devia]

I know a couple where she is from California and he is from a small city on the Illinios border.

In their words, she didn't know an intact family growing up (I mean literally, she can't remember one school chum whose parents were not divorced). He didn't know anyone who came from a broken home growing up. They're in their early twenties.

My husband and I spent a month travelling to and from small towns/cities in Illinois and Michigan. I remember in one town reading the local rag's stats on households and was pretty astounded that the census registered 3% as single parent homes, and a 2% divorce rate amoungest the population (not for the year, but those that had been divorced).

Most if not all of you know I'm far from being a saint, I was married a rather embrassing THREE times before I met my husband. It's been six years and I can honestly say we are much more solid then the day we married.

He'd also been "married" three times (as a much smarter person he'd only lived common law with two of them, but did consider them to be lifetime commitments).

What do all our combined six long term relationships have in common? They all came from broken homes. Both of us, before maturity finally kicked in had issues with being attracted to "fixer uppers". We also have in common both sets of parents having hit the 50 year anniversary. I may be optomistic but if both of us live to it I don't see us not hitting that 50 year anniversary ourselves.

Oviously I worry about the impact of my behavior on my kids. I think my daughters will be ok. My oldest has been with her first boyfreind for almost two years now, although there is a slight presurre from his side of the family for them to get married (he's Flippino) they've made the commitment to not get married untill they're thirty. My youngest is simluarly grounded in the fact that it's an uphill battle to not make those stupid mistakes mom + dad did. I think it's helped that mom+dad are very good freinds who are rather candid that getting married when you are 16 isn't a wise choice.

My son I really worry about, unfortunetely his dad and I are not freinds, and are not on the same page regarding speaking candidetly about the whole mess.

[aknapp1112]

Remeber one of the goals of feminism when looking at the divorce stuff...

We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -from Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p.537.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (Radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan)

"

Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman)

• "The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." ("The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971).

In case anyone was wondering where no-fault divorce, the various "tricks" that can be used without question in a divorce (false DV charges, false child abuse charges, restraining orders, etc) came from. Now, if you look at the other thread about the UK and the new laws involving assets in a divorce... looks like these quotes are just about true huh?

GO FEMINISM!!!!!     :roll: