Well I have heard of their book before and I have read reviews and synopses of it as well as excerpts. Their basic arguments boils down to the fact the since a few very blue states do better in certain family value measurements then a few very red states liberal values on family are superior to conservative values. I guess it is possible that their entire body of work is not a stinking pile of crap meant to convince them and their liberal friends of their moral and intellectual superiority but I really not willing to wade through it all to find out.




What was the measure for how red or blue a state was? How they voted in presidential elections. The average African American may have more conservatives views then the left side the democratic party but they would still be much more liberal then the average Utah republican. If the argument that a liberal point of view made for a more stable family which waits longer to have children and get married then the average African American should get married later the average Utah republican.

Instead of the self serving a patently ridicules argument that red vs blue it makes a lot more sense if you look at social and economic factors such as wealth and education. The majority of poor people in this country are uneducated whites that live in rural areas so it isn't surprising that red states score lower then a few select blue states. Blue states like California do worse then some red states.

I think most people would agree that South Carolina is more conservative than Washington but they actually do slightly better on the marriage matrix. Sorry but as I said earlier the entire theory is nothing more then the typical self delusional crap we say coming from liberals these days.