The US Census Bureau put together the map below. It shows what percentage of households in any given county include a married couple. In the counties colored with the darkest turquoise, between 59.6 and 79.6% of households consist of a married couple. In the counties colored white, less than 51.6 do.
I think it’s interesting to speculate as to how the reasons why there are more or less married couple households might vary by place. For example, some places may have disproportionate numbers of gay and lesbian residents who cannot, legally, get married. Others may have higher rates of poverty, which has been shown to decrease relationship stability, leading to less marriage and more divorce. Still others may have normative or religious pressures in favor of marriage (Utah strongly stands out as the most marriage-prone state). The racial/ethnic make-up of counties may contribute to marriage rates; we know, for instance, that black women marry at a lesser rate than white women for a whole host of reasons. Racial/ethnic homogeneity may play a factor too, since interracial marriage is still uncommon and asymmetrical when it does occur. Some counties have more disproportionate ratios of males and females, which may also shape marriage rates. What do you think? More hypotheses? Arguments one way or another?
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 22
Meg — February 20, 2010
I see that my county has less than a 50% marriage rate. As a married woman who wouldn't mind some more married friends, I'm not surprised. But I'm pretty sure I know why. I believe the primary reason is that it's a rather rural county except for a large university. So, quite a large percent of the population is not only college age but actively going to college, which makes it more likely that they'll put off marrying (unlike many people their age not going to college). In fact, I've met a few that have put off marrying because they don't want to lose student aid because their partner makes much more than they do.
Add in some poverty (including starving college students), foreign students that don't want to get tied down, a very liberal culture where it's acceptable to live together unwed, a good number of gay and lesbian people, a party atmosphere, and probably a few other things, and it makes perfect sense to me.
Umlud — February 20, 2010
I would also point out that Idaho also has a higher-than-average ratio of married couples in each county (but not quite as high as Utah appears to be).
What's possibly misleading is that the size (and shape) of counties change west of Texas, leaving huge areas of low population. These large areas with low population have a tendency of polarizing values (they are more prone to extremes).
Finally, another misleading this is the scale:
16.5-51.6: 35.1% diff
51.7-56.7: 5.0% diff
56.8-59.7: 2.9% diff
59.8-69.6: 9.8% diff
This appears to likely be a "quantile" split (although it could be a "natural breaks" split, too). Without thinking in such a scale, it can easily be misleading to the unwary.
Philip Cohen — February 20, 2010
I reckon race/ethnicity, age structure and education are the biggest factors (though Utah does stand out). It would be more informative if it showed percent married among adults ages 18-39 or so.
HP — February 20, 2010
Umlud: Idaho is nearly as Mormon as Utah -- my first thought when I saw the map was "Look at all the Mormons!"
As a former Hoosier, I was surprised to see how green Indiana is, given the divorce rates there. Has anyone done any statistical studies of serial marriage?
(This is purely anecdotal, but when I lived in Indiana I never ceased to be astonished by the number of people I'd met who'd been married more than, say, four times.)
Johannes — February 20, 2010
Does marriage automatically mean affiliation to religion or a church-accepted marriage?
For instance in Austria/Europe there is a big difference between a federal marriage (legal stuff, surname of the partner, etc.) and a church ceremony, the latter not being obligatory.
People marry also because of certain tax benefits, legal circumstances, etc. but choose not to have a church ceremony (which may have various reasons - no religious affiliation, too expensive, etc.)
Buffy — February 20, 2010
"For example, some places may have disproportionate numbers of gay and lesbian residents who cannot, legally, get married. "
Indeed. And even those of us who *are* legally married (because our state does, or did, allow it) will not be counted as such on the 2010 census. So for all intents and purposes we don't exist.
Jonathan — February 20, 2010
Mormons are obvious. Less obvious are the Catholics. Centered in the Mid-West, there are disproportionately more Catholics. In the Deep South, Catholics where run out by Baptists. Mexican immigrants are largely Catholic. You should post a by-county breakdown of religion. I'm betting Catholics will explain the non-Mormon hot spots of marriage.
kierabs — February 20, 2010
I think age is also a big factor here. I'm from one of those counties in Washington with a high marriage rate and I think that's because in the 40s the government built the Hanford Site, working on the Manhattan Project. Many people moved there in the 50s, but not many since then, so the population is relatively old. They're more likely to be married I would think, than counties where the average age is younger.
Kelsey — February 21, 2010
"For example, some places may have disproportionate numbers of gay and lesbian residents who cannot, legally, get married."
Even gays & lesbians who ARE legally married in their state can't be counted by the census, because DOMA makes it impossible for the federal government to recognize them.
Andrea A. Phillips — February 21, 2010
Marriage migration probably accounts for some of those checkerboard areas. As some commenters immediately noted, college and university areas tend to have a lot of single people in them. The flip side of that is that some counties are largely suburban areas where you go to settle and have a family.
I'd like to see this data mapped to show urban population centers and their suburbs. I suspect a fair amount of it can be chalked up to young, single people living in city and educational centers but heading to buy a house in the suburbs upon marriage.
Obviously that can't explain states like Nevada and Utah, though.
meep — February 22, 2010
Did anyone think of the obvious disparity due to longer life expectancies of women, along with the fact that women tend to marry men older than them?
Basically, certain areas are going to have a bunch of little old ladies around who are widowed. A lot of those light areas - in Florida, in the Southwest - have lots of old folks [mostly women as people get older] around.
If you added the widows back in, if you wanted to posit a "marriage culture", you'd have a basis for comparison.