Comments on: Increase in “Out of Wedlock” Births

By: Love rules at LesbianDad

Love rules at LesbianDad — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:57:30 +0000

[...] Thanks today to Dana, at Mombian, for “Seasonal Thoughts on the Evolving Family.” In it, she (as did Liza at LesbianFamily.org a few days back) ruminates on a number of contemporary reports about evolving family structures, both as a result of LGBT families’ boundary-stretching, and because of changing practices on the part of heterosexual folk — delaying or avoiding marriage, becoming single parents by choice, and more. In her piece she reminds us of something she’d written about in late September, stats I think all “non-traditional” family folk should know, that Less than 25% of all American families consist of a married, opposite-sex couple living with their own (biological or adopted) children—down from 40% in 1970. (Some of the 15% drop is because of a rise in countable same-sex couples, but not all.) [...]

By: Polly P

Polly P — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:46:09 +0000

Thank you, Liza, for writing about the “out of wedlock births” news coverage. No question, for the evolving American family to be properly understood — particularly the lesbian branch of it — we need to broaden the vision of those who collect and report on such statistics. Meanwhile, the self-publishing phenom of the blogosphere can keep us at least abreast. (No pun intended whatsoever, lesbian content and turkey day notwithstanding.)

By: Dana

Dana — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:08:53 +0000

Let’s see. There were 4,140,419 total births in 2005, and 36.8% of them, 1,523,674, were to “unmarried” mothers. According to HRC’s analysis of the 2000 Census, there were 297,061 lesbian families in the U. S., but that could be undercounted by as much as 62%. That would give us 481,239 lesbian families in 2000. Let’s assume that number has gone up–for the sake of argument, let’s say to 600,000.

The next question is how many of these families bore children in 2005? Let’s say one quarter–even if more wanted to, they might not have done so during that calendar year. (And some are too old, and some aren’t interested.) That gives us 150,000 births.

150,000 is about 10% of 1,523,674, or 10% of the 1% increase.

Those are loose assumptions, and I’ll be the first to admit they may not be accurate. Still, it’s an interesting question and worth some further investigation.

I posted some stats related to “unmarried” births and single parenthood a few months ago, FWIW.

By: Liza

Liza — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:47:55 +0000

Good points, both of you! MM, I think in my quest for visibility, I ignored folks in your position. Sorry about that! And more evidence that this is a multifaceted and complex demographic trend, not just “hey look, fewer teenagers are having babies!”

By: MaverickMama

MaverickMama — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:42:59 +0000

I single lesbian mother by choice, so I can say that it’s not just coupled women that are having children. In fact several of my friends are also planning to have children without a partner. I think that more women are taking charge of family building. It is an interesting stat, but it does not tell the whole story. The interesting part to me is how this news story made a big deal over the fact that not all un-married mamas are teens and/or destitute. Some of us made a choice to become mamas.

By: Roni

Roni — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:15:20 +0000

This story coupled with the story a month ago about married couples being in the minority leads me to wonder why no one is doing a story on why het-couples are opting out of marriage. I’m sure part of the reason is divorce, but there has to be more het-couples deciding that marriage isn’t all the hot.

But yes, I would also LOVE to see the stats broken down by LGBT identity. I’m sure the govt would fear that study cause maybe, just maybe there would be data to state that same sex couples are actually married more and in more stable relationships. Hmmm…

Happy Turkey Day everyone!