region known for its devotion to thernBible to have lower rates of divorce.rnThe truth is, Scriptural teachings dornappear to make a difference among therndevout. According to data compiled byrnthe National Opinion Research Center,rnthe prevalence of divorce among weeklyrnchurchgoers in the United States is 17rnpercent. This is less than half that forrnpeople who claim “no religion” (37 percent)rnand well below the marital dissolutionrnrate for people who attend religiousrnservices less than once a week (32rnpercent).rnWhile frequency of church attendancernis a reliable predictor of maritalrnstability, it has little effect on stateby-rnstate differences in divorce becausernthe size of the weekly churchgoing populationrndoes not vary significantly byrngeographic region (except in the West,rnwhere attendance is lower and divorcernhigher). Religious affiliation, however,rndoes have an effect on state-by-staterndifferences. Catholics, Jews, and Mormonsrnare less likely to divorce thanrnProtestants. (Two in ten Catholics havernbeen part of a failed marriage, whilernthree in ten Protestants have experiencedrndivorce.) Thus, one of the reasons forrnthe relatively low divorce rates inrnthe Northeast and Midwest is thatrnthese regions have a higher concentrationrnof Catholics than other geographicrnareas.rnAccording to author Michael Mc-rnManus (a Protestant), the lower rate ofrndivorce among Catholics reflects the factrnthat their parishes take the responsibilityrnof marital support and counselingrnmore seriously than Protestant churches.rnIn his book Marriage Savers, McManusrnargues that “America’s churches are partrnof the divorce problem.” He notes thatrn73 percent of all weddings take place inrna church, yet most ministers do not requirerncouples to go through premaritalrncounseling. Rather than being “blessingrnmachines,” McManus believes churchesrnneed to concentrate on offering premaritalrncounseling and marriage enrichmentrnprograms like those sponsored by MarriagernEncounter.rnWhile the impressive track record ofrnsuch programs underscores the value ofrnreligious teaching in reducing divorce,rnUniversity of Texas sociologist NorvalrnGlenn believes part of the reason for therncorrelation between lower divorce andrnhigh church attendance is that people involvedrnin a local church are socially rooted.rnThat is, they are integrated into a localrnnetwork of cross-generational socialrnrelationships which offers them supportrnand expects them to adopt certainrnnorms of behavior and attitude (like thernexpectation that their marriage will notrnend in divorce).rnGlenn believes couples enmeshedrnin such networks are far less likely torndivorce than couples who are morernsocially isolated. Indeed, his researchrnshows a strong correlation betweenrnresidential movement and divorce—rna connection he believes is due not justrnto the absence of social integrationrnamong transplanted married couples,rnbut also to the fact that martial unionsrnjoined in transient geographic areas arernoften more unstable.rn”Where there is a great deal of residentialrnmovement, persons on the ‘marriagernmarket’ probably will not have asrnmuch information about the characteristicsrnand background of one another asrnthey would if most of them had lived inrnthe same locality for a long time,” Glennrnnotes. “A high level of residential movement,”rnhe adds, “is likely to increase thernprobability that persons with dissimilarrnbackgrounds will marry.”rnFrequent mobility also increases thernchances that a married individual willrnmeet someone who seems more desirablernthan his or her current spouse,rnGlenn says. And it increases the likelihoodrnthat an individual in a troubledrnmarriage will seek advice from someonernwho does not know the other spouse andrncannot offer the kind of balanced perspectivernthat is often needed to help resolvernmarital problems. Thus, one ofrnthe major reasons for high divorce ratesrnin the Sunbelt is that this area of therncountry has experienced greater populationrngrowth and residential turnover thanrnmore stable areas in the Northeast andrnMidwest.rnTo be sure, there are other influencesrnat work. For example, divorce rates arernaffected by the stringency of divorce law.rnClearly, the liberalization of state divorcernlaws during the I960’s and I970’s helpedrnfuel the dramatic surge in divorce thatrntook place throughout the country duringrnthis period.rnPolicy considerations, however, havernonly a minor effect on regional differencesrnin divorce because divorce laws dornnot vary considerably from state to state.rnThe one exception is Nevada, which hasrnthe nation’s most liberal divorce statuternand (not coincidentally) a dramaticallyrnhigher rate of divorce than any otherrnstate in the union. (A divorce can be obtainedrnso quickly and easily in Nevadarnthat some people establish temporaryrnresidence in the state for the expressedrnpurpose of getting a divorce.)rnIn addition, regional differences inrndivorce are influenced by several demographicrnand cultural factors. Specifically,rnpeople in the Sunbelt tend to bernslightly younger than people in thernNortheast and Midwest (which has arnmodest effect on divorce rates sincernmost divorces occur during the firstrnseven to ten years of marriage). Southernersrnalso tend to marry at a slightlyrnyounger age than Northeasternersrn(which is relevant because people whornmarry young are more likely to divorce).rnAnd Northeasterners are slightly less likelyrnto marry than people in other regionsrn(which reduces the size of the populationrnthat could get a divorce).rnIn many ways, it is too bad that highrndivorce rates cannot simply be attributedrnto the absence of professional baseball.rnFor it would be far easier to expand thernnumber of major league baseball teamsrnthan to adopt the sort of daunting reformsrnthat would be needed to make arnmeaningful dent in the divorce rate.rnBut if we are serious about reducingrndivorce in this country—and we shouldrnbe—then we should seek to overturnrngovernment policies that permit unilateralrnno-fault divorce. We should call forrnchurches to encourage greater participationrnin premarital counseling, marriagernenrichment, and community-buildingrnprograms. We should implore businessesrnto reduce the volume of forced geographicrntransfers and job-related travel.rnAnd we should work diligently to changerncultural attitudes about divorce, helpingrnAmericans see the long-term damagerndivorce causes.rnObviously, curbing divorce in Americarnwill not be easy. But a nation that stillrnhonors Lou Gehrig’s heroic perseverancernand still cherishes historic Wrigley Fieldrnought to be able to regain its commitmentrnto the time-honored ideal of maritalrnpermanence. We ought to be able tornrenew our vows “to love and to cherish,rnfor better, for worse, for richer, for poorer,rnin sickness and in health, ’til death usrndo part.” We ought to be able to findrnour way home.rnWilliam R. Mattox, Jr., is vicernpresident for policy at the FamilyrnResearch Council inrnWashington, D.C.rn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn