Gay Marriage is totally wholesome and about fidelity and commitment like regular marriage...

...except when it isn't.

....and if you speak the truth you are a H8ter.

...and, of course, H8ters are thought-criminals and thought-criminals have no rights.

//The big lie of gay marriage was always this: “It will affect nobody outside of the gays who wish to partake in it.” That is clearly false, as any number of bakers or photographers will tell you after having gone through the legal wringer of forced gay wedding compliance. Yet sometimes the big lie gets even bigger. Sometimes it threatens more than the livelihoods of cake-bakers in north-central Colorado.

Sometimes it threatens free speech. That seems to be the situation out of England regarding a case in which a celebrity gay couple has placed an injunction on the British press to cover up reports of an extramarital encounter. According to Paddy Manning (a gay Irish columnist notable for his opposition to gay marriage), the couple is none other than Elton John and David Furnish, the latter of which supposedly flew to New York City several years ago to participate in a ménage à trois with two other men; scheduled events allegedly included some time in a wading pool filled with olive oil.

The Sun, a British newspaper, attempted to write an article about this tryst, yet the couple successfully managed to bring an injunction against not just the Sun but the entire British press: “[N]othing at all,” writes Manning, “might be written about the matter in England or Wales.”//

If you think liberal totalitarianism is bad now...

...just wait till the Supreme Court constitutionalizes Gay marriage on the grounds of a "constitutional right to dignity."

//If dignity is defined so elastically, then conservatives judges might invoke it to strike down not only gun-control laws, but also other progressive legislation. Libertarian groups invoked the “sweet-mystery-of-life” my language in Casey to argue that the Obamacare healthcare mandate unconstitutionally violated the dignity and autonomy of Americans by forcing them to buy health insurance. In the future, cigarette smokers might argue that anti-smoking bans violate their ability to create an individual identity. And conservative Christian wedding photographers could claim that anti-discrimination laws compelling them to photograph gay weddings violate their dignity and ability to define themselves as conservative Christians. What courts would do when confronted with the clashing dignitary rights of the religious wedding photographer and the gay couple, or the hunter and the victim of gun violence, is anyone’s guess, because dignity is such an abstract concept that its boundaries are difficult to discern.

In suggesting that the expansion of the right to dignity is something that liberals may come to regret, I’m not arguing that same-sex marriage bans can or should easily be upheld in light of the Supreme Court precedents on the books. In the same-sex marriage arguments, the liberal justices seemed drawn to the idea that marriage is a fundamental right that must be expanded to all citizens on equal terms. A decision along those lines—although broader in some respects than a ruling based on dignity—might be easier to confine to cases involving marriage. And given Justice Kennedy’s previous opinions for the Court ruling out of bounds moral disapproval and the preservation of tradition for its own sake, it’s hard to think of any other plausible reasons for upholding the marriage bans that don’t rely on what the Court has defined as animus. Still, if the Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans on the grounds that they violate a right to dignity, liberals may have second thoughts about empowering judges to decide whose dignity trumps when the interests of citizens with very different conceptions of dignity clash.//

So, dignity for liberal me and not for conservative thee?

Expect dignity rulings that find "bad speech" - "racist" or "sexist" speech, i.e., the kind to which activist requires "trigger warnings" - to be justified, but the vilification of "bad groups," such as Catholics by the City of San Francisco to be ignored.

Defending unpopular murderers and totalitarians may be fashionable...

...but defending conservatives who believe in the institution of marriage that has existed in Western civilization may be a death blow to your future.

Major law firms will not defend traditional marriage in Supreme Court.

Why is the number "2" so special?

This is a quick and powerful argument about marriage.

Testimony of Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation in support of Indiana HJR3 and H1153 from ADF Media Relations on Vimeo.

The other shoe is dropping.

After years of portraying gay couples as like regular couples, but cuter, and now that the revolution appears to have been won, liberal magazines are beginning to share that gay "marriage" will be essentially different from heterosexual marriage...presumably because gay marriage is missing a certain something we call "women," who don't typically see the "upside" in permitting their husband have sex with other women.

Surprise!

The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days. 

But the thorny part of the gay marriage experiment is sex, and more precisely, monogamous sex. Mundy writes about an old study from the '80s that found that gay couples were extremely likely to have had sex outside their relationship—82 percent did. That was before AIDS and the great matrimony craze in the gay community. She also tells the story of Dan Savage, who started out wanting to be monogamous until he and his partner had kids, and then they loosened up on that in order to make their union last. “Monogamish” is what he calls his new model. But as Mundy asks, can anyone out there imagine a husband proposing that same deal to his pregnant wife?

Yes, we can imagine the response to such a proposition.

It wouldn't be pretty, we imagine.

Gay marriage, the importance of elites and social conformity.

Brendan O'Neill at Spiked writes:

With gay marriage turned into ‘a kind of common sense’, opposing it became more difficult, potentially even threatening one’s social and moral standing. The ‘common sense’ of gay marriage has been turned into something like a dogma of gay marriage, in a very subtle way. So the very act of debating gay marriage has been implicitly demonised, since in the words of one observer, ‘The fact that there is a debate over whether to deny a group of people their civil rights is unacceptable’. Here, through further linking gay marriage to the old civil-rights movement, even discussion itself can be branded ‘unacceptable’.

Others say there should be no ‘acknowledgment of subtleties and cultural differences’ on gay marriage, since ‘there is a right answer’ on this issue. Those who insist on possessing ‘cultural differences’ on gay marriage – or even worse, opposing it – feel the fury of campaigners. A chicken restaurant in America was boycotted after its owner criticised gay marriage, while voters in American referendums who have said no to gay marriage have been called every name under the Sun by the respectable political and media classes: ‘ill-informed’, ‘deceived’, ‘plain ignorant’, ‘knuckle draggers’. This has the effect of beating down critical questioning. Gay marriage supporters actually boast of using moral pressure over political debate to win people’s acquiescence. Scientific American magazine recently discussed the apparently brilliant way that social media is being used to influence people’s ‘attitudes and behaviour’ on gay marriage. Everyone is ‘susceptible to the powers of peer pressure’, it said, so constantly saying favourable things about gay marriage on social-media websites can be a way of ‘send[ing] out a message about what’s acceptable, appropriate and… well, normal’. That is – never mind convincing someone with reason; just heavy-handedly let them know it’s normal to support gay marriage, and thus presumably abnormal to oppose it.

This is how conformism is forged and enforced today: elites devise an idea or campaign, far away from what one gay-marriage proponent calls ‘the tyranny of the majority’; that idea or campaign gets disingenuously depicted as something that protesters and campaigners demanded and actually put pressure on the elites to come up with; and through a process of debate-demonisation and pathologisation of dissent, through the treatment of acceptance as normal and criticism as abnormal, the idea or campaign is spread more widely through society. Eventually, in the words of Caldwell, even those who are unsure about gay marriage ‘quell their natural misgivings’. Indeed, when I interviewed the British pop star Dappy recently, and asked him if he supported gay marriage, he said: ‘I want to say no… but I get so much stick already. So say “yes”. Definitely say “yes”.’ How many other people are saying ‘yes’ not because they believe in gay marriage, but because they don’t want, in Caldwell’s words, to be thought of as ‘losers’ who have failed to ‘emulate their betters’?

The conformism around gay marriage cannot be put entirely down to handfuls of campaigners, of course, and certainly not to any conscious attempt on their part to enforce political and moral obedience. The fragility of society’s attachment to traditional marriage itself, to the virtue of commitment, has also been key to the formulation of the gay-marriage consensus. Indeed, it is the rubble upon which the gay-marriage edifice is built. That is, if lawyers, politicians and our other assorted ‘betters’ have successfully kicked down the door of traditional marriage, it’s because the door was already hanging off its hinges, following years of cultural neglect. It is society’s reluctance to defend traditional views of commitment, and its relativistic refusal more broadly to discriminate between different lifestyle choices, that has fuelled the peculiar non-judgmental tyranny of the gay-marriage campaign, which judges harshly those who dare to judge how people live. Through a combination of the weakness of belief in traditional marriage and the insidiousness of the campaign for gay marriage, we have ended up with something that reflects brilliantly John Stuart Mill’s description of how critical thinking can cave into the despotism of conformism, so that ‘peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of conduct, are shunned equally with crimes, until by dint of not following their own nature, these [followers of conformism] have no nature to follow’.

This is grotesque...

...and sort of the concern that inspired opposition to gay adoptions.

The little boy who started a sex change aged eight because he (and his lesbian parents) knew he always wanted to be a girl...Parents say it's better for Thomas to have sex change before he is adult

The mothers say that one of the first things Thomas told them when he learned sign language aged three - because of a speech impediment - was, 'I am a girl'.

At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning.

This summer, he started taking hormone-blocking drugs, which will stop him from experiencing puberty.

The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. 

The couple faced intense criticism from friends and family as a result, Ms Moreno told MailOnline.

'Everybody was angry with us. "How could you be doing this? You might be ruining his whole life!"

Citing a statistic from the Youth Suicide Prevention Program, Ms Moreno noted over 50 per cent of transgender youth will have had at least one suicide attempt by their 20th birthday.

People like this are making a mockery of gay marriage.

Woman marries fairground ride.

It just keeps getting better...

....since the inmates began running the asylum.

Wesley Smith writes:

Leave it to my state of California to head off in radical and expensive directions. Legislation has been filed that would require group insurance to cover gay and lesbian infertility treatments just as they do heterosexual. But, as I note elsewhere, AB 460 isn’t limited to a finding of actual infertility. Nor does it require that gays and lesbians have tried to conceive or sire a child using heterosexual means, natural or artificial. Rather–as with heterosexual couples–merely the inability to get pregnant for a year while having active sexual relations is sufficient to demonstrate need for treatment, meaning if the bill becomes law, it would require insurance companies to pay for services such as artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. for people who are actually fecund. Indeed, since the bill prevents discrimination based on marital or domestic partnership status, theoretically every gay and lesbian in the state could be deemed infertile for purposes of insurance coverage merely by the fact that they don’t wish to engage in heterosexual relations.
That’s no way to contain health care costs! Moreover, I note that health care law is being used these days to promote social agendas other than access to a doctor...

Picking your fights...

...or shoveling sh*t against the tide.

Jennifer Rubin suggests that with the passae of three gay marriage amendments in three states it is time for conservatives to admit that they've lost the argument:

Right Turn has made the point repeatedly that the issue of gay marriage is a generational one, a battle that social conservatives have lost. That was crystal clear yesterday. Maine, Minnesota, Washington and Maryland handled gay marriage the right way in a democracy — proponents went to the voters, made their case and won the support of a majority of their fellow citizens. Minnesota rejected a ban on gay marriage; the other states acted affirmatively to approve it. Conservatives can have no principled opposition to a exercise of democracy that embodies the principles of federalism.

Add to that the election of Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay member of the U.S. Senate and the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the U.S. military and you have a sea change. Conservatives can make their case at the state level and can in principled fashion insist that voters, not appointed judges, make the decision, but as a national issue there is no other way to put it: The ship has sailed.

In fairness to Mitt Romney, he never once use gay marriage to stir up his base, evidence of his innate decency and, if one is more politically cynical, the lack of political mileage to be gained from the issue. In the future, Republicans for national office would do well to recognize reality. The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism. As with divorce, one need not favor it, but to run against it is folly, especially for national politicians who need to appeal to a diverse electorate.

Conservatives don’t have to like gay marriage. But they campaign on it at their own risk. Holding onto an issue on which the federal government has precious little to say anyway is as foolish as opining on rape, abortion and God in a two-minute debate answer. Opposition to gay marriage by national officials is a political loser, which conveys to a majority of voters an out-of-touchness and lack of inclusiveness. It deprives Republicans of support from the gay community and makes it that much more difficult to reach out to young, urbanized voters.

Fair points, and, yet, is there nothing of value in this thing we call a commitment to the truth.

Gay "marriage" isn't "marriage" because marrriage in its essence means that human institution primarily concerned with the creation and nurturing of children. There may come a time when we want to analyze and define and establish policy for the kind of relationship in which people come together to have children. What word do we then use for that kind of thing? Will we start referring to the kind of marriage that exists for 99.99% of humanit as "heterosexual marriage" or "baby-making marriage"? Perhaps we will use a completely different word, call it "trothal," to describe this odd form of human relationship.

But, of course, if we did that, then not letting gays use that word would be exclusionary and discriminatory, and we are right back where we started.

It may be old-fashioned of me to say this, but I don't want the government telling me that I have to share in the mental delusions of people who want to say that things which are different are actually the same.

And why the Hell not?

The title of the story is "Brazil allows three person marriage," but the story actually indicates that the marriage was allowed by a lone Brazilian Public Notary, so this is not quite the bellwether it sounds like.

But, still, in principle, why not?

And, in principle, why not permit a woman to marry a building? Because it makes a mockery of "marriage"?

I guess you'd have to define marriage for that to be the case.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

How does gay marriage affect your marriage?

Well, quite a bit if the government is going to tell you that your obstinate refusal to change your position from that which has been the normal human position forever to that which became "normative" last Tuesday by fiat is "not acceptable."

Opposition to Gay Marriage is "not acceptable" according to British minister for
"justice and policing":

Nick Herbert, the justice and policing minister, joined the growing political row within the Conservative Party about giving homosexual couples equal rights to marry.

David Cameron has said he wants to change the law to allow same-sex marriage, but has faced a backlash from members of his own party, including some Cabinet ministers.

Mr Herbert, who is homosexual and in a civil partnership, said that he and others of the same sexuality are effectively being treated as second-class citizens.

Opponents of same-sex marriage, he suggested, are making intemperate and unreasonable arguments.

“I am getting rather fed up with people metaphorically jabbing a finger into my chest and saying I should put up with a civil partnership,” he told the London Evening Standard.

“How would they like it if I jabbed a finger into their chests and said they should put up with a civil partnership instead of their marriage?”

Mr Herbert added: “In my view it’s not acceptable to say to a group in society, ‘You should put up with something that is a second order institution to something that everybody else is entitled to, because we say so’. I think this is about nothing more or less than a fundamental issue of equality.”

Jeepers, if you hold to a position that was the position for Western Civilization - and all of humanity - until last Tuesday and suddenly you are an "enemy of the state."

It makes you realize that the stakes are much, much higher in the gay marriage dispute than simply whether Bob and Tom get a piece of paper that says they are "married."

Tolerance is the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Denmark makes it mandatory for churches to marry homosexuals.

Rights of conscience?

Freedom of Religion?

Screw that.

You. Must. Approve.

Notice the Orwellian doublespeak in this Telegraph story:

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church

Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark's church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote "historic".

"I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it's only heterosexual couples."

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

The far-Right Danish People's Party mounted a strong campaign against the new law, which nonetheless passed with the support of 85 of the country's 111 MPs.

In other news, I've won the right to withdraw funds from your bank account. If your bank teller objects, the bank manager has to find a teller who will allow it.

Screw any bank or bank manager who has a conscience issue with the idea of "thou shalt not steal."

According to this Communio article, this is the logical end point of liberalism, which in a totalitarian fashion denies any right to exist to any principle apart from that of liberalism.

Perhaps that's true, but this is clearly a signal flare about what we are in for if we don't stand up to the violations of freedom of religion and conscience that we see all around us.

No word yet from the pro-gay marriage lobby about whether this makes a "mockery of marriage"...

...like there was with the lady who married a building.

Nadine Schweigert, North Dakota Woman, 'Marries Herself,' Opens Up About Self-Marriage.

Lower tax bracket... she can visit herself in the hospital...everyone involved consents... it's hard to see a downside here.

Perhaps it's time to put a bullet through the head of the brain dead, narcissistic wreck that is post-modern Western marriage.

Speaking of narcissism, note the bride/groom's explanation for her self-marriage:

Schweigert said the ceremony was a celebration of how far she'd come since her painful divorce six years ago that led to her two children to decide to live with her ex-husband.

"Six years ago I would've handled a problem by going out and drinking," she said. "I smoked, I was 50 pounds overweight ... this is just celebrating how far I've come in my life."

The Fargo-based yoga teacher also takes herself on dates to treat herself and "to invest in this relationship".

I'm totally sure that her self-absorption had nothing to do with her two children choosing to live with their father.

Via Mark Shea.

Despite what you are being told, a majority of Americans oppose Gay Marriage.

You have to wonder about the cognitive dissonance that inhabits the liberal world as expressed by liberal talking heads on television. We are constantly told that a majority of Americans support Gay marriage, and, yet, every time gay marriage is put up for a vote it loses, and often in the 60 to 40% range.

What gives?

The answer is that liberals are believing their own BS. While the statistics show that most Americans oppose gay marriage, a majority might support at most civil unions for gays. Liberals report the "civil union" statistic, but then conflate it into "gay marriage."

Here is a typical headline from CBS - "Most Americans support same-sex unions."

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that most Americans suppost same sex marriage."  In fact, the headline should read "Most Americans oppose same-sex marriage."

Here is the polling data that CBS provides:

When the "allow civil unions" figure is added to the "no legal recognition" figure, we end up with something fairly close to the support that we see in favor of the traditional definition of marriage every single time it gets voted on!

In other words, the "allow civil unions" folk shouldn't be lumped in with "gay marriage supporters," they should be added to the "gay marriage opponents" category.

Liberals - dishonest and making you stupid every single day.

More Pro-Gay Bullying.

A round-up of news about homosexuals "punishing" people and churches who Fail.To.Approve.

The soft kitty steps of Liberal Fascism continue to march on in hobnail boots.

The EU Court of Human Right determines that Churches who do not permit gay marriages in jurisdictions that have legalized gay marriage are guilty of discrimination:

The European Court of Human Right reached a decision this past week that while same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a human right, in European states where civil marriage for same-sex partners is admitted, churches that refuse to participate would be guilty of illegal discrimination.

The court reached the decision in the case of two women engaged in a civil partnership in France, who complained they would not be allowed to adopt a child as a couple. The court heard how one of the woman had her application refused to adopt her partner’s child. Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois had tried to establish marriage rights under anti-discrimination laws but the judges said there had been no discrimination.

“The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage,” judges in Strasbourg said. “With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.” The ruling has also said, however, that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, any church that refuses to marry gay couples will be guilty of discrimination.

Contacted by the Scottish Catholic Observer, Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, said that if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized in the United Kingdom, then the partners will be entitled to the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. “This means that if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises,” he said.

The Catholic bishops of Scotland, England and Wales, joined with leaders of other Christian confessions, have denounced government proposals to redefine marriage and allow same-sex couples. In addition, Muslim and Sikh leaders recently averred that the legalization of same-sex unions as marriage is an ‘unnecessary and unhelpful’ step.

"Illegal...to prevent"?

In other words, it would be illegal for the state to provide a conscience-exemption.

How very Orwellian.

Hipsters discover that they can't change the definition of "jealousy."

Tracy Quan at the Daily Beast ponders why Demi Moore might object to her "husband's" - and "husband" is in quote because it is not "marriage" when it doesn't involve fidelity - philandering in an "open 'marriage'":

You don’t know which kind of open relationship you have until you’re in the middle, testing your own limits, as may be the case with Ashton. But why would Demi care about a night spent with someone like Sara Leal?

“Everywhere in the world both sexes care,” says Fisher. “Both men and women do what academics call mate guarding. A woman in Demi’s position is pouring a lot of metabolic energy into a man who’s pouring his metabolic energy into somebody else. From a Darwinian perspective, that’s not terribly adaptive, so it can make you mad.”

Even if Demi had an open relationship with Ashton, “this is an individual who provides not only sex, intimacy, and companionship,” Fisher explains. “He’s now the social father to her children. From a financial perspective, she probably never needed him, but from an emotional perspective people want a partner to help them raise their DNA. If she stands to lose that, she feels undermined.”

Cheating on your partner in the context of “open” is often more exciting and transgressive than cheating on a traditional marriage. Any form of sex outside the home seems like cheating to a monogamous couple, but open relationships give birth to arcane and highly creative definitions of infidelity. Sex without a condom (alleged by Leal) might be seen as cheating, while sex with protection isn’t. (Some use a condom outside the marital bed and not at home, but the canniest philanderer makes sure to use condoms with everyone.) Sex with a friend of the family is betrayal, sex with a stranger a nonevent. Girl on girl is OK with some husbands; girl meets boy not so much. For many of us, involvement with a bimbo or a boytoy doesn’t really count—with your partner’s intellectual equal or professional peer, you enter treacherous terrain.

No matter how you manage the all-too-human need for variety, the bottom line—as Fisher points out—is how undermined your mate feels. At the end of the day, whether male or female, famous or anonymous, mono or open, you’ll pay a price for that.

I like that comment about "someone like Leal," and how it points to the elitism of the Left. It's almost as if Quan is casually remarking that Ashton's trifling with the scullery wench really couldn't matter.

But that kind of thing worked with the crowned heads of Europe during a time when social class really did debar people of the lower class from making a claim on the upper class.

So, it seems that even people as guarded from the iron rule of the "Gods the Copybook Headings" are re-discovering something as cliche as jealousy.

The Death of Democracy.

Apparently a sovereign people does not have the right to determine something basic - something that has been non-controversial since time immemorial - like recognizing the fact that marriage is an institution that exists for the creation and rearing of children.

I guess on one level this is suprising.

Lesbian "marriages" more likely to end in divorce:

Lesbian Divorce Shocker: Same-sex marriages between women are considerably more likely to end in divorce than either same-sex male marriages or heterosexual marriages, according to a study of Norway and Sweden:

We found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. In Norway as well as in Sweden, the divorce risk in female partnerships is practically double that of the risk in partnerships of men.

Is the difference explained by a relative lack of children to encourage stability? Maybe not. The study found a similar pattern with childless couples (when other variables were accounted for).

So what’s the explanation? Here’s the murky PC theory offered by the study’s authors:

We find that partnerships of women to a much larger extent are demographically homogamous than are partnerships of men: Lesbian partners often have relatively similar characteristics while gay spouses more often differ in terms of characteristics such as age, nationality, education, and income. Such similarity in characteristics might also reflect a deeper feeling of sameness in lesbian couples. Such a sameness and a corresponding lack of clear power structures may be inducive to a high level of dynamism in the relationship, but perhaps not to the kind of inertia that is related to marital stability. [E.A.]

Um, ok. … You got a better explanation? …

Backfill: The study is not new–it appears to have been published in 2006. It’s new to me.

Or there is Glen Reynolds' explanation:

LESBIAN DIVORCE SHOCKER: Same-sex marriages between women are considerably more likely to end in divorce than either same-sex male marriages or heterosexual marriages, according to a study of Norway and Sweden. Well, women initiate divorce twice as often as men, so it stands to reason that a marriage composed of nothing but women would be more likely to split.

Makes sense: if women are twice as likely to initiate divorce in real marriages, then its stands to reason that the women in a lesbian marriage would be four times as likely to initiate divorce.

Yeah, I know it really doesn't work that way, but do you have a better explanation?