WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD...
The [VERMONT] Office of Vital Statistics has provided preliminary data on civil unions for the period of July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002. During that period, there were a total of 5,286 civil unions certified, registered, and filed with Office of Vital Statistics. Male unions represent 35% of the civil unions in 2000, 33% in 2001, and 29% in 2002. 
OK. One thing this shows is that a couple made up of two women was twice as likely to want to commit and settle down together as two men in 2000, and almost three times as likely in 2002. Does this come as a huge surprise? I think I have alluded elsewhere to the joke among lesbians that the problem is getting people NOT to show up with all their luggage to move in on the first date. And I think we all know how things stack up on the other side of the aisle...
Of the 3054 parties to a civil union in 2000, 22% were Vermont residents. [The other 78% were from other states, Washington, D.C. and other countries. After Vermont, the largest number of parties to a civil union are residents of New York, Massachusetts and California. Non-U.S. residents hailed from Canada, England, Venezuela, Mexico, Philippines, Australia, Netherlands, Germany, India, and Guatemala.] Vermont residents accounted for 13% of civil unions in 2001 and 10% in 2002.
While this is interesting, it is not really surprising. But let's come back to that 22% down to 10%: forget about the percentage, let's talk numbers. According to Kinsey, 10% of the VT population should be "gay"; that makes things look REALLY bad for the men, so let's say that it's 2%, which is a figure used by many other [usually Bad, Conservative] researchers. The population of VT is about 600,000, or roughly the size of Boston, funnily enough. According to Kinsey, there should be 60,000 gays in VT, but we will go with the BCR and say that there should be about 12,000 "real" gays in VT, and we could presume for statistical reasons that half of them were men. Now it's true that most of New England's gay men do not in fact stick around; they tend to congregate in Boston or Provincetown, or a few other cities known to be friendly. But nevertheless...
According to the Census Bureau, about half of the VT population is either under 25 or over 65; assuming for the moment that the same figures hold true for our "real gay guys", and that noone under 25 or over 65 wanted to enter a civil union, that leaves us with 524 VT gay men out of 3,000 who decided to commit themselves to another human being of the same sex, or about 17½%. Consider just for a moment that if we use the Kinsey figure, the percentage would be 3½%. But even 17½%, which certainly represents YEARS of pent-up demand, such as it is, is bad enough. In the end, the gay marriage argument begins to look like a tempest in a really tiny teapot, as we are talking about a group that is such a minority within such a minority as to be essentially invisible. Kind of like us, in fact!
The average age of a party to a civil union is 41.
The youngest party was 18, and the oldest was 82.
This of course makes complete hash of my assumptions above, but so what?
OK. One thing this shows is that a couple made up of two women was twice as likely to want to commit and settle down together as two men in 2000, and almost three times as likely in 2002. Does this come as a huge surprise? I think I have alluded elsewhere to the joke among lesbians that the problem is getting people NOT to show up with all their luggage to move in on the first date. And I think we all know how things stack up on the other side of the aisle...
Of the 3054 parties to a civil union in 2000, 22% were Vermont residents. [The other 78% were from other states, Washington, D.C. and other countries. After Vermont, the largest number of parties to a civil union are residents of New York, Massachusetts and California. Non-U.S. residents hailed from Canada, England, Venezuela, Mexico, Philippines, Australia, Netherlands, Germany, India, and Guatemala.] Vermont residents accounted for 13% of civil unions in 2001 and 10% in 2002.
While this is interesting, it is not really surprising. But let's come back to that 22% down to 10%: forget about the percentage, let's talk numbers. According to Kinsey, 10% of the VT population should be "gay"; that makes things look REALLY bad for the men, so let's say that it's 2%, which is a figure used by many other [usually Bad, Conservative] researchers. The population of VT is about 600,000, or roughly the size of Boston, funnily enough. According to Kinsey, there should be 60,000 gays in VT, but we will go with the BCR and say that there should be about 12,000 "real" gays in VT, and we could presume for statistical reasons that half of them were men. Now it's true that most of New England's gay men do not in fact stick around; they tend to congregate in Boston or Provincetown, or a few other cities known to be friendly. But nevertheless...
According to the Census Bureau, about half of the VT population is either under 25 or over 65; assuming for the moment that the same figures hold true for our "real gay guys", and that noone under 25 or over 65 wanted to enter a civil union, that leaves us with 524 VT gay men out of 3,000 who decided to commit themselves to another human being of the same sex, or about 17½%. Consider just for a moment that if we use the Kinsey figure, the percentage would be 3½%. But even 17½%, which certainly represents YEARS of pent-up demand, such as it is, is bad enough. In the end, the gay marriage argument begins to look like a tempest in a really tiny teapot, as we are talking about a group that is such a minority within such a minority as to be essentially invisible. Kind of like us, in fact!
The average age of a party to a civil union is 41.
The youngest party was 18, and the oldest was 82.
This of course makes complete hash of my assumptions above, but so what?
65% of parties to a civil union had at least four years of college education in 2000, as compared to 55% in 2002.
OK, so they're means that we used to be smarter than the general population, though maybe it was just the smart ones who jumped in and did it first... that edge was pretty much gone by 2002. And the "marrying kind" were not necessarily smarter than the guys who just want to party...
The number of civil unions by Vermont residents appears to be declining.
VT has lost its monopoly, and the local suppy of interested men is probably all taken care of by now. It might be instructive for some of the activists on both sides of the shouting match across the rest of the country to take a look at these numbers...
Most of this math is me doing what Mr. Hubbard taught me in 4th grade, on the back of the proverbial envelope and at one remove from the actual VT numbers, so if you know better, let me [and the rest of us] know!
[The pictures, by the way, are all of real VT civil unions.]
I'm always suspicious of data or statistics. I also need my calculator to keep up with your numbers! LOL.
ReplyDeleteDefining gay is also tricky. In my estimation, I'd say sexual orientation is truly a bell curve, perhaps leaning slightly towards straight, but when it comes to check the box, 90% choose the straight box because few will admit to be gay or have gay leanings openly and thus define this data.