Ampersand has a post up about some statistics indicating that despite the fear that same-sex marriage will alter the meaning of marriage, the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are the same ones that are on the forefront of banning same-sex marriage. Ampersand writes,
So which 9 states are projected to see 1 in 4 teenage girls become mothers? Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All of those states are well-known hotbeds of marriage equality.So in contrast, how did Connecticut and Massachusetts -- where same-sex marraige is legal -- rank? In the entire country, only Vermont and New Hampshire have lower projected teen motherhood rates. Oh, and by the way, Vermont's senate just voted for legalizing gay marriage.
The apt conclusion Ampersand points out is that you can have same-sex marriage and low teen pregnancy rates.
*insert duh noise*
It is also helpful to look at race and class as a factor in the rate at which people support gay marriages and the rate of teen pregnancy. Evidence indicates that access to education decreases the rate at which women have kids early. As we know well, the interpolation of being against same-sex marriage and abstinence-only education is part of the same story. That story where men own your sexuality and we must do nothing to disrupt the sanctity of sexism, I mean marriage.
The bigger issue this has gotten me thinking about is the role of single moms in the fight against heteronormativity. In order to appeal to the elitist common denominator, the mainstream GLBT (sometimes Q, but I am talking mainstream here) has made gay marriage look like a very white and normal thing. Hey, we want the same big wedding you want, we are just gay. Politically it makes sense if you are of the reform minded set and even from a radical perspective it holds water, as most civil rights legislation started strategic and mainstream.
But I think the bigger question of whether the mainstream gay movement is going to look at the role of single mothers, often villianized by news, often women of color, often poor, as in some way disrupting straightness and heteronormativity, goes unasked.
Are single mothers proof that heteronormativity is total bullshit?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Heteronormativity Fail. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12693
homo-ennuic (n): Utterly bored by and indifferent to all things GLBTQI.
Some queer people think the same thing about all things straight..but we can't get away from it.
So indifferent that you took the time to post about it!
...and spend hours and hours scanning the net for places to post trollish comments about it...
I guess I breathed in too many exhaust fumes on my bike ride this morning, but I'm really not comprehending what question/issue Samhita is positing regarding single motherhood and GLBTQ issues. Could someone help me out? Please type slowly. :)
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I've read it a couple of times, and this is what I come up with. (Samhita, please correct this if I'm reading it wrong.)
Many GLBT advocates make the argument that gay marriage is essentially just like straight marriage, except with 2 men or 2 women. Politically speaking, I believe it's the most effective argument. From a theoretical perspective, what Samhita's wondering (again, I think) is whether the GLBT leaders speaking to the media ever will bring in instances of presumably heterosexual people exist outside the framework of an archetypal marriage.
And the idea is that by emulating straight marriage, you're reaffirming the heteronormative values behind it. Whereas non-traditional families dispense with the heteronormative values altogether.
Whereas non-traditional families dispense with the heteronormative values altogether.
Could you go into furhter detail? I need an example if I am going to comprehende what you mean...
If you try desparately to conform to some model that's held up as being the best by your culture, you're in effect confirming that this is indeed the best way. But if you refuse to conform, you're implicitly rejecting the values involved.
I'm not married to my partner, we have a 16 m/o daughter together, and my 5 y/o stepdaughter lives with us for half of the week. Her mother and grandparents are on good terms with us (her mother and I are actually really good friends, much to the shock and apparent disapproval of many people in this town), we often spend holidays together or take the kids swimming together, we all attend parent-teacher conferences, swimming lessons, etc together, so in a sense we're this big mixed extended family, and a non-traditional blended immediate family.
People find this really strange, and often act kind of disturbed by it. All during my pregnancy they asked my partner and I if we were going to marry. Everyone assumes that my stepdaughter's mom (H) will resent me, or my daughter (Q), and that we won't get along. Honestly, they seem disappointed to see that we do. At my stepdaughter's birthday party after the older kids had pretty much abandoned the bounce house, H took Q into the bounce house and bounced and played with her while I was setting up the game they were going to play. I noticed that some of the other parents there were watching H and Q play in the bounce house as if it was the wierdest thing. And we get the same response when we meet up at the daycare or swim lessons or gymnastics and Q laughs and runs over to H like she's happy to see her.
Since the traditional heteronormative view sees the nuclear family as the most basic social unit, existing as a non-traditional family is disruptive to that.
While having my blood taken at a pathology in a small country town recently, the nurse was telling me all about my doctor who apparently refers his patients to his ex-wife who happens to be a specialist in another town close by. The nurse was quite taken by this, telling me how strange it was and expecting an affirming response.
I sat there and continued to have my blood taken, little did she know that I was transsexual and that my husband was away at the time, some thousand kilometres away visiting his Mum in a nursing home and staying with his ex-wife.
How strange was that! Stupid ignorant heteronormative fool!
I don't get it...?
From what you wrote it seemed to me that the nurse was suprized that the doctor would refer people to his ex-wife. Sounds like an amicable divorce.
P.S. I am going through a divorce right now so maybe that is why that stuck out.
P.P.S Why was the person a pathetic fool?
I grew up in a very heteronormative household. Through social conditioning, I assumed that all couples that separate and/or divorce must be at each others' throats.
When I met my husband I wasn't prepared for the fact that he was still very good friends with his ex-wife. It astounded me that he actually was, and I put-off for a long while, meeting the his ex myself.
His ex and I are now very good friends. The stereotype has been lifted from my mind.
The nurse in my story still believed that her views were "normal". She, as I did believed that people who are divorced are by default enemies with each other.
Her small country-town heteronormative attitude in my opinion paints her as foolish, as not only did I not acknowledge her logic about ex-partners ovbiously being enemies, but I know she would never have given me the time of day had she known my background, and not only that but while I was there having blood sucked out of my veins, my very own husband was staying with his ex-wife, contrary to the belief she was trying to pass onto me by way of her story.
Her small country-town heteronormative attitude in my opinion paints her as foolish
So people who don't live in large urban centers should be viewed negatively on that basis? Heteronormativity and prejudice don't exist in cities?
contrary to the belief she was trying to pass onto me by way of her story
This sounds to me like she had certain unconsidered assumptions at work - just like you, as demonstrated in your comment, seem to have certain assumptions at work. The fact that her normal on-the-job conversation reflects those assumptions does not mean she's consciously proselytizing about her beliefs. What's warranted in situations like these, I think, is polite discussion about the issues at hand (at the very least, that divorce needn't spring out of/result in hate) - not assuming that she's a transphobic, ignorant hick.
"Small country-town heteronormative views" as opposed to more worldly views that some people exhibit no matter where they live.
You said: What's warranted in situations like these, I think, is polite discussion about the issues at hand (at the very least, that divorce needn't spring out of/result in hate)
Which I agree with, but having gone to the doctor because I was ill, then to have blood tests, I wasn't really in any mood for any discussion.
You also said: not assuming that she's a transphobic, ignorant hick.
When you have walked in my shoes, or are transsexual and have walked in your own, you will understand that usually (yes I'm generalising), the heteronormative, the conservative, the religious, also just happen to be transphobic!
"Small country-town heteronormative views" as opposed to more worldly views that some people exhibit no matter where they live
That doesn't reassure me, honestly - even if you "don't really mean" (as they say) the class-related problems in that statement, the use of them is enough to undercut that claim. The problems associated with transphobia are especially serious, but that doesn't make it acceptable to respond with prejudice. Or, for that matter, to assume that someone holds heteronormative, retrograde, transphobic, ignorant views just because most of the divorces she's witnessed have been unpleasant ones. There's no obligation to start a dialogue on that with someone who's drawing your blood while you're sick - but there's also no basis for concluding that she's "heteronormative, conservative, religious, [and] transphobic" because her experience with/observations of divorce haven't been the same as yours.
Growing Violet,
Nothing I type is going to change your view of me or what I wrote is it. So I won't bother. Having been on the receiving end of countless bigoted and heteronormative attitudes in my life, I am no mug when it comes to this subject. Perhaps my way of expressing it is not as eloquent as others, but it nevertheless doesn't change my experiences.
The one thing that single mothers do show is all the heterosexual sex that is going on.
Gay men presumably are not creating babies through by budding off a little baby. Lesbians either have to pony up some serious dough for a medical miracle,or have gotten pregnant the old fashion way, which would have been just how heteros do it.
As for the states that have the highest rates of teen pregnancy being the ones on the forefront of banning gay-marriage... Maybe what you have are people that believe they are in the middle of O'Riely's culture war.
Maybe the youth there are socially repressed so they blow off steam by screwing without condoms, becuase they are taught they don't work in the first place.
I don't know about all of the states listed, but I live in Kentucky. I think there are a few things going on here. First sex education is terrible and/or non-existent. I do think that being taught (whether by school or church) that condoms don't work make one less inclined to use them.
Also, a lot of teens in Kentucky (especially the more rural areas) still have no expectation of education or training beyond high school, if that. (We have one of the highest dropout rates in the country as well.) So...having a baby at 18 or 19 isn't as big of a deal if you're not worrying about college as far as what it does to your future prospects.
As for why Kentuckians oppose SSM, I can only guess. I didn't live here a few years ago when there was a big campaign and a ballot referendum on it. I'm sure religion plays a big part, and other people seem just to think it's "gross" or "unnatural" to be non-hetero. As a GLBTQIA community, we're not particularly well-organized either, which makes it much easier to defeat pro-gay rights legislation.
Very good points. I would also add that people in a situation where they feel unequal are likely to cling to any advantage they have. When a group doesn't seem much prosperity in their future, they are more likely to want to keep another group down. Is the answer to kick them down further or to acknowledge geographic privilege and work toward equality.
Remember the experiment where children were taught to discriminate because of eye color (one eye color was treated better than the other). When the roles were reversed, the group that was originally discriminated against did not show increased empathy for their classmates. Instead, they treated them worse than they had been treated when they were the underprivileged group.
On a similar note, I'm from Texas and I thought the high pregnancy rates had more to do with the poverty of the states in question rather than how liberal they were. Also, the southern states are traditionally more religious. I know from witnessing the unintended pregnancy of a religious friend that she felt it was her duty to have the kid but she couldn't have afforded an abortion even if she'd wanted one. (I guess religious values are often cited in the movement against gay marriage, so this might be an unnecessary statement)
I understand (and certainly agree with) the point that denying same sex couples the right to marry does nothing for the "moral and family values" of a state. However, I think it's very difficult to objectively compare teen birth rates in the poorer states like New Mexico, Texas, and Mississippi to those in states like Massachusetts while ignoring the socioeconomic statuses, education levels, and religious views of teen mothers in those states.
Whoops, I realized that this really similar to what Samhita said! It just bothers me so much that I had to say something about it. The girls I knew who followed through with unintended pregnancies usually did so because their lot in life gave them no other choice.
The one issue I've dealt with in referring to single motherhood as a challenge to heteronormativity is that many/most single mothers themselves reject this. Single mothers are very rarely single mothers by choice, and most would probably tell you that they'd like to get married if the right guy came along. They're no different than most Americans in their values in this sense. Even the book I read about single mothers for choice had only one real case study of someone who was being political. There were some lesbians, but mostly it was straight women who wanted to get married, but it never happened for them.
Good point Amanda. But that might be because they don't have the language or access to the dialogue of the "single" woman which is generally a white, middle class phenomena, at least when it is a empowering choice. I still think that it is possible for it to disrupt heteronormativity, even if they are not saying they are doing that or bought into an explicit belief they are queering heteronormativity.
While certainly there is correlation between states that have a liberal attitude towards gay marriage and a liberal attitude towards teen pregnancy prevention, I don't think it follows that gay marriage and low rates of teen pregnancy are related at all.... am I not reading this right? I'm kind of confused as to what relationship you are trying to imply.
So, Samhita, if too many people disagree with you here then will you just shut down all discussion by closing the comments like you did on your last post? Permit dialogue only if it goes your way?
I'm just curious.
No, single motherhood doesn't prove that heteronormativity is bullshit. I'll explain why in a moment. For now, I'd like to address the whole "white makes right" approach to resistance. First off, it simply wouldn't work if it didn't seem like a viable alternative to what the "radical" position is on a given issue. If that radical position is held by those in oppressed groups (and it usually is) then whatever gains the first group makes only serve to further oppress the rest. Kimberle Williams Crenshaw wrote about this issue in her essay: Mapping the Margins. When you play to racist and sexist fantasies while trying to alter them, you run the risk of marginalizing others.
Now, onto single moms. Thing is, we are already figured into the dominant culture's ideology. Our family structure is alternately marked up as the result of a mistake or as a transitive state between one heterosexual relationship and the next. That's the only "trans" that counts, after all, in the minds of the majority we're all catering to in one way or another. Single motherhood is a challenge to heteronormativity if and only if it is figured as part of a larger feminist issue: say, for instance, the huge disparity in pay between single moms and non-mothers. If we made a serious effort to undermine that heteronormative stronghold, then single motherhood would take on connotations that truly challenge the status quo. But in and of itself? Too easy to write off.
What I think Ampersand and now Samhita are pointing out, is that one of the things homophobic people cite when justifying banning gay marriage, is that if we allow gay people to get married, it will erode the institution of marriage and family values will fall apart. Those people who believe that have obviously not looked at these statistics, because the states trying to promote these 'family values' and marriage the most, are the states with the most unwed teen mothers. It's just backwards.
Also, Lewisranja, why do you feel the need to antagonize Samhita right off the bat? It can be very tiring and upseting if the comments on a post get out of hand. This is Samhita's blog post, she has the right to decide if she doesn't want to keep arguing an issue back and forth. There is no democracy between commenters and bloggers on this site. If you don't like it, go read another blog.
Very good post Miki,
The arguing style of many conservattives (of which heternormative and the religious right are a part) is the instillation of fear by way of saying that if whatever it is they are arguing about is allowed to continue, it will be the end of ... it will be the destruction of ... the sky will fall in.
Another analogy: I'm making amends with my Mother after a rather awkward decade and in particular where I've been introspectively looking at how much impact my family upbringing had on me, including the conservatism, heteronormitivity, my gender issues and my violently abusive alcoholic father's emotional abuse of me. In one meeting with Mum recently,, she finally told me that she was proud of me, she told me a few other things that really didn't mean much to the overall conversation, but one of them was that she had nothing against same-sex marriage. But almost in the same breath, she went on to say, almost as if she felt the need to "reclaim" some ground or opinion of her own, she went on to say that she didn't believe same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children. When I raised the notion that these children will undoubtedly be raised to embrace diversity, she insisted that her reasoning was that they need the "balance" of a male and female in the household.
What a joke! This was only minutes after we'd been discussing the abuse my father inflicted on me and her. I'd have given anything for him not to be in our house. Balance?
Yeah I don't see any connection between hetero-normativity and single motherhood, other than that the Bible Belt strongly opposes same sex marriage and comprehensive sexual education. So, if you're looking for a causal relationship they both stem from conservative Christianity's unease with sexuality. To echo Brandy's point, a few months ago there was an impressive look at this by the NYTimes that found that a strong reason teens in low teen pregnancy states avoid pregnancy is because of their college/career ambitions, whereas in states such as Texas its rather expected to be a mom @ 19.
I do have a hard time understanding what's wrong with hetero-normativity. Since its the only biologically sustainable lifestyle, its hard to argue that it shouldn't be normal, or even normative. In fact you can support the full political agenda of the GLBT community & still be hetero-normative. Or am I misunderstanding the definition of hetero-normative?
I do have a hard time understanding what's wrong with hetero-normativity.
I think the opposition to heteronormativity has two aspects. The fisst aspect is the assumption that most people are straight, which of course, is born out by demographically research that generally places the gay/bisexual population at about 3-7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
The second part is the assumption that random people you meet are straight because of statistical probability leads to prejudice against the non-heterosexual, which is where some perceive the sticking point to be.
Or that the normative aspect of heterosexuality means that homosexuality is unnatural.
But maybe I have it wrong.
The idea behind heteronormativity is not just that heterosexuality is the most common or "default" sexual orientation, but that it's the best orientation. Like, morally. And this entails the nuclear family with two differently gendered parents that fundies and conservatives are always yammering on about. So besically, any non-traditional family is disapproved of by heteronormativity.
I think the relevant issue here is that there's a common complaint within the gay community concerning the same-sex marriage struggle as it currently stands which claims that by emulating straight marriages and making the argument that they just want to "do marriage" just like everyone else, they're affirming and upholding the same heteronormative ideology that has always and will continue to exclude them and construct them as less-than. So the idea is that instead of accepting cultural norms and trying to get yourself an official stamp of normative approval, you fight the dominance of these norms themselves and work to bring flexibility and openness to your culture.
The idea behind heteronormativity is not just that heterosexuality is the most common or "default" sexual orientation, but that it's the best orientation.
Opposition of heteronormativity on this site does not seem to reflect the interpretation that heternomitivity means heterosexuality is the is the 'best' idea.
I recall all of the consternation regarding Hes Just Not That Into You as being heteronormativite.
Now I did not see the movie, but what I read here indicated the the complaints were regarding a lack of gay relationships, not that the movie was trying to say that heterosexuality is the best sexual relationship.
Do a search for heteronormative in the 'search feministing' on the community web page. You will find many instances where posters seem to define heterosexuality as heterosexuality as the modal sexual orientation and then apoogize for a display of heterosexuality.
You're making this overcomplicated. Think about the parts of the word. Hetero and normative. Normativity always carries connotations of how things "should" be or of being the "best" way to be. That's how norming and othering works. There's a fairly good definition here.
That's not to say that all heteronormativity is centered around couples and families either. But the basic idea is that there's one model of a life and of relationships that's privileged over others, and anyone who doesn't fit is problematic in some way.
So in a more extended view of heteronormativity, an unpartnered woman, whose sexuality is not contained and legitimized via her husband, is seen as a danger. Similarly, one of the arguments against same sex marriage is that marriage to a woman civilizes men.
As it applies to critiques of pop culture, whenever it's assumed in a book, movie, TV show, etc that any given character must be straight, or that the only options are straight, or even the trend to not portray many gay, trans, etc characters is heteronormative. Because it's assuming that heterosexuality is the norm and constructing homosexuality/ trangender/ bisexuality/ whatever as not normal.
Rather than making this overcomplicated, I think I am acqkowleging how complicated the situation is.
The problem (or complication) with using words is there is the word in as defined in the dictionary and then the word as defined by colloquial use.
Much like how an academic term may have a different nuace depending on which discipline is using it, the term has a different use when used by the general public.
In use, heteronormiativity appears to be opposed for the assumption that heterosexuality is typical, not best.
Your provided website mentioned under representation of gay/lesbian couples as being an example of heteronormiativity ...
If the media displays 95% of couples/individuals to be heterosexual, is that statement of normative preference, or a reflection of actual prevalence of heterosexuals in society?
Think about that, in order for a show, sitcom or commercial to have 1 gay or lesbian there needs to be a cast of 20, if that show wants to reflect accurate sexual orientation ratios. A gay or lesbian couple would need a cast of 40.
In use, heteronormiativity appears to be opposed for the assumption that heterosexuality is typical, not best.
That's the opposite of my experience, actually. But most of my experience with the word has been in academic contexts where the prescriptive nature of normativity is taken for granted. I don't think anyone in that context hears "normative" and thinks "normal" or "most common," which may not be the case in common usage. But again, "normal" and "normative" shouldn't be confused, as one is descriptive while the other is prescriptive.
And I've heard the arguments before about why TV shows and movies can't include gay/trans/bi/queer people. But this is much more nuanced than that. Think about the way blacks and other ethnic minorities were so underrepresented in media for years and years. Whenever there was a black character, it was a mammy type or a criminal or a silent housekeeper or waiter. And that sent the message that white people are the normal people, whose lives are stories, while black people are the servants and criminals that are necessary accessories to that story. They're substandard or deviant in some way. But a black person's life is never the story, nor can they be just a normal middle class person... This is how norming and othering works. It begins by taking something as the norm-as-in-most-commonly-occuring and turns it into the norm-as-in-most-natural-or-best.
Until recently, there were very few gay/queer/trans characters featured (unless it was a movie about AIDS) and when they were there, they were often abnormal in some way. They could be prostitutes, or flamingly feminine men, or super butch lesbian PE teachers with no sense o fhumor, or crossdressers who had some sort of deep mental disturbances, etc. In other words, never portraying them as normal everyday people, and always assuming that love and relationships were about straight people, others gay/queer/trans people.
Also, "normal" and "normative" are not synonyms. If something is normative it's presriptive as opposed to the decriptive term "normal."
Also, I'm not sure what heteronormativity has to do with a lifestyle being sustainable. Even though we pretend to be committed to environmentally sustainable lifestyles, for instance, there's strong normative force in a capitalist society to live a profoundly unsustainable consumer lifestyle (as in "we can all help the economy by buying more shit"). Perhaps if a person was committed to the idea that population growth is a good in and of itself, that would entail heteronormativity by virtue of the fact that it creates more children, but that would assume the absence of fertility technology in our world.
I have always known heteronormativity to be used to describe something that upholds traditional models of male/female dichotomy as not only "normal" but "natural" and best, which includes gender assignments, gender presentation, relationships, gender approrpiate behavior, and other areas as well. So it goes way beyond gay & straight. Someone who id's as female, displays feminine characteristics, and is only attracted to men can still be non-heteronormative if they reject the rigidy of gender or reject the idea that the only "correct" relationship is a monogomas heterosexual one involving two people. Hetero-normativity isn't necesserraily about how any one person lives or how they id seixly, but rather about whether or not they apply what they feel is best to others and demonize anything that doesn't fit into their boxes of relationship/gender/sexuality. So yeah, heteronormativity isn't about heterosexuality or gender conformity, it's about saying everyone should be heterosexual/follow certain gender rules. Hope that made sense.
I never understood why some interpretations of heteronormitive include a monogamous aspect to it...
If a dude is married but is cheating on his wife with another woman, he is only engaging in heterosexual sex, and that seems to fall within a plain understanding of heterornormative.
How about a new word...mono-hetero-normaitve? Its kinda like naming organic molecules...
I think it's because the idea of heteronormativity is tied up with conceptions of what's good for society, or what's "natural." So the people who are always raving about how divorce, single parents, cohabitating couples, etc make society so unstable are also opposed to adultery or open relationships. Except when it comes to their own behavior in airport bathrooms and with male prostitutes/meth dealers. And they'll argue that adultery is unnatural because we were created by God as heterosexual couples meant to serve and glorify Him...
Hey, that 'guy in an airport bathroom' was my half-cousin's ex-wife's step-father....
I will admit a limited understanding of the history of the term heteronormative, but it appears to me that the monogamous/married aspect was added after the word was coined.
And the word appeared to be relatively new (thank you, wikipedia)and from what I grabbed from Google Books, the original context of the word did not necessarily imply monogamy, that was added later.
Also, look at all the complaining that was going on at feministing about the heternormativeness of He is just not that into you. If the people there were dating and having prematial sex, then they were not heteronormitve.
So either we have a poorly defined word, or the members of feministing that did not like the 'heternomativeness' where complaining about something else and calling it heteronormative.
Hey, that 'guy in an airport bathroom' was my half-cousin's ex-wife's step-father....
Ha!
I think that there are a number of different aspects of the concept of heteronormativity and applications of it. So the discussion about He's Just Not The Into You were focusing on one particular aspect of it. And there is a broader versus a more narrow definition of it. You're right that monogamy is not necessarily included. But given the power of fundies and social conservatives in our cultural thinking about sex, this is often a part of the heteronormative package, because monogamous lifelong pair bonds is the ideal that's held up as being "natural."
It made perfect sense.
Apropos of nothing: "Heteronomativity" is really hard to pronounce in my head. I keep adding extra syllables.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled conversation.
Yes, most people identify as heterosexual, meaning that it is more likely that not that most people you meet will be straight. It is also true that if every single person in the world was both gay and uninterested in procreation (ie, no one turned to artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc., which plenty of gay people do), the human race would not be sustained.
BUT.
The problem with heteronormativity is that "normal" is not the same as "most frequently occurring". There is a major difference between saying that heterosexuality is the most commonly claimed sexual identity and saying it is the "right" or "normal" sexual identity. Heteronormativity means that only male-female relationships (and only those involving one of each, preferably leading to marriage and children) are seen as valid and normal. It affects the types of relationships portrayed on televison, in movies, on the news, in songs, in advertisements. It affects the way a person's coming out will be perceived. It makes everyone who is not heterosexual the "other". It makes them different and abnormal and marginalized. And that is why it's not desirable.
You mention that race and class are issues, but I haven't really seen any discussion of them yet on here.
Of the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates, all but Nevada have some of the highest poverty levels nationwide. U.S. Census Bureau stats indicate the following recent percentages of the population below the poverty line in those states:
AZ: 14.2
AR: 17.5
KY: 17.1
MS: 21.1
NM: 18.4
OK: 16.6
TN: 15.9
TX: 16.9
The only state from your list that doesn't have very high poverty is Nevada, which has a 10.8% rate. That's near the national average. Now, I don't know, but I'd venture to guess that Nevada's unique state laws and customs -- among them its legal (in some places) prostitution and its wedding industry -- could have something to do with that.
(Among the states that don't appear on the list of highest for teen pregnancies but do have astronomical poverty rates are Alabama (16.8), West Virginia (15.2), South Carolina (1.56), Washington D.C. (18.8) and Louisiana (19.3).)
Not coincidentally, the numbers correlate. According to 2007 U.S. Census Bureau statistics, the average annual income for a female-led household with no husband present was $33,370, while that for a male-led with no wife was $49,839. (The numbers diverge similarly for men and women of non-family households.) I am guessing that many of those teen moms are unmarried.
By contrast, the poverty levels from that table I referenced on the states with low teen pregnancy rates and good gay marriage/union records are 8.2% for Connecticut, 10.1% for Massachusetts, 10.7% for Vermont and 7.7% -- the lowest nationwide -- for New Hampshire.
Those four states also happen to be pretty racially homogeneous and native-born: As of the 2000 census, Massachusetts was 89% white, Vermont 98%, New Hampshire 94.5% and Connecticut 87%. I'm not sure what that says, other than that (obviously) it's easier to make a lot of money if you're white and native-born and that perhaps it's easier to get progressive legislation passed when everybody in your state looks and speaks alike. (I'm thinking of the difficulty the anti-Prop 8 campaign supposedly had in making inroads in non-English-speaking communities.)
By contrast, Texas is only 70% white with a huge Mexican population; Arizona and New Mexico share the latter. As of 2000, 36.7% of Mississippians were black, and while Tennessee's black population is only 16%, the state has had a big influx of immigrants recently.