With the addition of New York this week, six states permit gay marriage. Looking at the data, those states that permit gay marriage are growing more slowly than the rest of the country.
Below are the population growth rate between 2000 and 2010 for those states that permit gay marriage. Data from the 2010 census.
Connecticut: 4.9%
Iowa: 4.1%
Massachusetts: 3.1%
New Hampshire: 6.5%
New York: 2.1%
Vermont: 2.8%
Additionally, Washington, D.C. permits gay marriage.
District of Columbia: 5.2%.
In contrast, the United States population grew 9.7% between 2000 and 2010. Every singe state that allows gay marriage has grown more slowly than average.
Now, I don’t imply that gay marriage reduces a state’s growth rate, though that could be a logical conclusion because heterosexual couples are much more likely to reproduce. Nevertheless, I think the number of people in the LGBT community is too small to effect the population number to that extent.
Instead, it is the other policies of the liberal states, especially their tax policies, that drive migration between states. Notice how low-tax New Hampshire was the fastest growing of all the states listed above. It is the overall effect of liberal policies that are driving people out of these states into more conservative states.
Michael E. Newton 
That’s an interesting observation. It makes me ask, is feminism at the root of the apparent increase in homosexuality in The United States? In other words, since the advent of the most militant forms of feminism, such as that of the sixties where the actual lines between the sexes, their roles in society and in bed, have been blurred, has feminism created sexual confusion creating more homosexuals in that gays may not understand their true roles in society and therefor they become homosexual. Has feminism made some Americans gay? Many Americans?
Or is it that there already were a lot of gays and they have just decided to come out of the closet, so to speak?
The reason I ask these questions is that same sex couples are now eligible for state sponsored benefits to which the taxpayer pays in many states. And do we really want to pay benefits to perpetuate what really may simply be the result of sexual confusion orginating from the feminist movement?
To speculate as to the causes would be just that, speculation. However, it is obvious that certain activities that used to be forbidden but were always done are now done more publicly whereas they had been hidden in the past.
Homosexuality has been around forever, but it used to be done in secret. Many applaud that it can now be acknowledged more publicly, though I’d argue that they have gone too far. I don’t go around announcing to the world that I am straight and I don’t really want to know if the person I meet on the street is gay or straight. If they want equality, they should act equal. I don’t wear a pin saying I’m straight and I don’t want to see your LGBT rainbow.
A better example is pre-marital sex. In the “good old days,” it used to occur (probably less frequently) but was not talked about in public. And if somebody got a girl pregnant, they were expected to get married as quickly as possible. Today, the general population boasts about how often and with how many people they had sex. Again, too much information. It’s your right to do as you please, but I’m not sure why they think I care about it.
Morals and mores are for dummies not for liberals.
Excessive sexual permissiveness, preoccupation with and glorification
of sex has led to a decline of birthrate.
I believe that this is the case in Europe, except for its Muslim population.
France, where liberalism and a culture of permissiveness prevailed
in the period between WW I and WW II, experienced negative population
growth.
Religions and traditionalists always maintained that the spirit of
liberalism and permissiveness is suicidal to society in its consequences.
It is somewhat ironic that more sex leads to fewer children in secular society.
Because we need a larger population?
Interesting observation. I think it is liberal policies, along with a culture that is hostile to families. Just a guess. If you look at the cities and neighborhoods in the US with the highest populations of homosexuals, you will also have trouble finding children, even though the majority of people in those cities and neighborhoods are not homosexual. Since the liberal policies cited above are state policies, this is a strong indicator that there is something else going on that transcends government policies–culturally the areas are antithetical to families and raising kids.
Liberal state = high taxes & regulation. A good environment for college students, academics, government workers, & minorities; bad for everyone else.
I don’t have a problem with homosexuality, per se, until I have to start paying for it. Then it effects me directly. Same sex partner benefits cost me money. It may not be much in the grand scheme of things. But it all adds up.
Even the population as it stands, massive brainwashing has infringed numbers of people to adopt all that is popular. With no moral value, drones and zombies are made, only supporting evil agendas of anti-citizen freedoms as well as promoting tyranny, letting in evil as Muslims, takeover.
We know population growth is a concern of bilderbergers, Rockefellers, rothschilds, etc so it may not affect it significantly but it is part of the slowing down of the USA I call it – population control, resource control, etc. Part of the green movement as well – less resources will be used, etc. A congresswoman once famously said the benefit of the recession has been slowing of using up resources. I don’t remember which, but I remember the statement. It’s very telling. It exposed the agenda. Our economy is being slowed on purpose while 3rd world economies are built up. Essentially wealth redistribution on a global scale.