Conservative and mental Tantric, Andrew Sullivan writes on Red State / Blue State statistics of great interest:

Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.

Sullivan taps a variety of facts supporting his final conclusion that Red State politicians, knowing "sin" personally in their own lives and in the lives of their constituencies, seek to draft legislation designed to prevent the spread of sin in their states. Thus the Defense of Marriage act, and a host of other laws designed to regulate heterosexual and homosexual behavior.

Sullivan implies that Red State Evangelicalism causes higher divorce rates. The opposite is true. Higher divorce rates (or, in general, more relaxed attitudes towards sexual behavior) cause Evangelicalism. Now, I dont want to simplify a complex subject like religion by claiming its parent as sexual liberalization. However, I feel it is sound to state that sexual liberalization is a major factor in the rise of Evangelicalism in the U.S.

A casual viewing of the 700 Club broadcast, along with attentive attendance in any Evangelical church will reveal Evangelicals as people in the grip of social paranoia. Themes of persecution, violence, and mutilation are repeated time and again as Evangelical leaders and ministers seek to exploit (knowingly or not) the fears of their beholden. They say, "you are surrounded by encroaching sin." In a state such as Texas, with its comparitively higher divorce rate, this statement has more resonance. In Massechusetts, with its remarkably low divorce rate, this statement find little salience. Divorce is a powerful tool of societal corruption. Single parent homes, child abuse, wayward youth, and poverty are some of the byproducts of divorce. Thus it follows that Texans are likely to see more single parent homes, child abuse, wayward youth, and poverty than those in Massachusetts.

Therefore, when mired in so much social dissonance, people naturally will seek some sort of framing device by which the world may be explaned (and perhaps prevent the rise of such dissonance in their own lives). Evangelical Christendom is happy to provide that device, explaining that divorce and all its side effects are the result of sin. Still, as mentioned in my previous post, Christianity perceives sin as inevitable. Therefore, we are all doomed to sin and as such, we are doomed to bear witness to divorce. Only upon the return of Christ will divorce [and all sinful acts /thoughts(?)] disappear. This sort of relaxed resignation does not translate well into every sinful act though, which may be one reason homosexuality is so reviled by the Evangelical movement.

Simply put, to the regular Evangelical, divorce is statistically a greater threat than homosexuality. One is more likely to live as a divorcee than as a homosexual. The facts being as they are would lead some to draw the conclusion that divorce should receive the lion's share of attention. This is not the case precisely because the Evangelicals are content to defer to the "relaxed resignation" I mentioned above. Texas Evangleicals probably dont see themselves "surrounded" as such by homosexuals--and dont want that to change. Most likely, the bulwark of their knowledge regarding homosexuality comes from pop culture and the media (which does a piss-poor job of accurately representing gays by the way). Therefore homosexuals are abstracts and make a lovely target for their theological munitions as such. Say what you will against homosexuality and homosexual marriage, the worst in terms of human suffering you will ever see is a mournful mention of the denial of marriage on next week's Will and Grace. And the Fab Five will continue to wow us all with their imitations of what amounts to little more than Blackface Theatre. No real human cost is perceived, no pain witnessed, and the status quo is undisrupted.

To the average, liberal Massachusetts-ian, gays are more prevalent. Being a far more educated state than Texas, the citizens of Massachusetts consume less of the pop-culture homosexual ciracature and more person-to-person retail homosexual experience (not to imply anyone is whoring himself out there on the East). More people in Massachusetts know homosexuals (or more accurately, "out" homosexuals). They relate to them, find common ground with them, and realize the sexual preference of any man or woman is actually a minor personality trait (which, by the way, would make the characterization "homosexual" a bit of a misnomer as sexual preference does not define anyone).

[This harkens back to a previous post in which I claimed that the tolerance of an individual for homosexual marriage can be predicted by population per square mile in any given state. The smaller the population in any given region, the more likely that population is to condemn homosexual marriage (if not homosexuality itself). I will amend this statement to qualify it as unique to the United States. Homosexuality exists in a shadow society in China, and is outright illegal in India--two of the most populous nations in the world. ]

In disagreement with Sullivan, I claim that sexual liberalism (divorce), combined with population density and the salience of the Evangelical message contribute to the rise of Evangelicalism and thus the voting behavior of the majority of any given state.