Quick thought on "red" and "blue" families

With respect to the piece, to which Tom linked, on "red" and "blue" families, a few quick thoughts:

First, their "red" v. "blue" taxonomy seems (shockingly) simplistic.  If they mean "families in blue states" and "families in red states", then they are (obviously) overlooking the diversity (in politics, as well as family situation) in red and blue states alike.  (There are "new system" families aplenty in downtown Atlanta and Phoenix, and there are old-school, traditional families aplenty in Minnesota and Pennsylvania.)  Next, we are also overlooking -- and, I appreciate that this is a delicate point, but it is an important one -- the extent to which a third situation (which, we might think, is at *least* as prevalent in "blue states" as in "red states") of familes consisting of poor, unmarried women and children with non-involved (perhaps multiple) fathers. 

The claim that "blue familes" are "prosper[ing]", then, has to ignore these third-situation families in blue states, and also rests -- I assume -- on contestible notions of what counts as "prospering."  Similarly, the claim that "red families" are struggling, even on their own terms, is certainly true in many cases, but I have a hard time believing it is any more true than the claim that "blue families are prospering."

Now, all that said, it *should* be a matter of great concern -- to policymakers and theologians alike -- that, in those states where professed religiosity is high, and professed adherence to "traditional" morality is high, we nonetheless see a great deal of divorce, etc.  But the "red" and "blue" thing seems like a self-congratulatory gimmick.