same sex marriage articles with citations

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Challenges and Opportunities for Research on Same-Sex Relationships

Research on same-sex relationships has informed policy debates and legal decisions that greatly affect American families, yet the data and methods available to scholars studying same-sex relationships have been limited. In this article the authors review current approaches to studying same-sex relationships and significant challenges for this research. After exploring how researchers have dealt with these challenges in prior studies, the authors discuss promising strategies and methods to advance future research on same-sex relationships, with particular attention given to gendered contexts and dyadic research designs, quasi-experimental designs, and a relationship biography approach. Innovation and advances in the study of same-sex relationships will further theoretical and empirical knowledge in family studies more broadly and increase understanding of different-sex as well as same-sex relationships.

One of the most high-stakes debates in the United States today concerns whether and how same-sex relationships influence the health and well-being of individuals, families, and even society. Social scientists have conducted studies that compare same- and different-sex relationships across a range of outcomes (see reviews in Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Rothblum, 2009 ), and state and federal judiciaries have drawn on this evidence to make critical legal decisions that affect same-sex partners and their children (e.g., American Sociological Association, 2013 ; DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 ; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 ). Therefore, it is critical that family scholars develop a scientifically driven agenda to advance a coordinated and informed program of research in this area.

Advances in theory and research on marriage and family are inherently shaped by the changing contours of family life over time. For example, during the past decade, increases in the number of people who cohabit outside of marriage have been accompanied by vast improvement in the methods and data used to study cohabiting couples ( Kroeger & Smock, 2014 ). A number of factors point to similarly significant advances in data and research on same-sex relationships in the near future. First, the number of individuals in same-sex unions is significant; recent data from the U.S. Census indicate that about 650,000 same-sex couples reside in the United States, with 114,100 of those couples in legal marriages and another 108,600 in some other form of legally recognized partnership ( Gates, 2013b ). Second, the increasing number of states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (now at 19 states and the District of Columbia, and likely more by the time this article is published), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 suggest there will be many more legally married same-sex couples in the years ahead. Third, growing efforts by the federal government to identify same-sex couples in U.S. Census counts and national surveys (e.g., the National Health Interview Survey) and to fund research on sexual minority populations mean that researchers will have new sources of data with which to study same-sex relationships in the future.

We organize this article into three main sections. First, we provide a brief overview of current research and data on same-sex relationships, distinguishing between studies that examine individuals in same-sex relationships and those that examine same-sex couples (i.e., dyads). These two approaches are often conflated, yet they address different kinds of questions. For example, studies of individuals can assess the health benefits of being in a same-sex relationship by comparing individuals in same-sex relationships with individuals in other relationship statuses, whereas a focus on couples allows researchers to examine how same-sex partners compare with different-sex partners in influencing each other’s health. In the second section we consider common methodological challenges encountered in studies of same-sex relationships as well as strategies for addressing these challenges, with particular attention to identifying individuals in same-sex relationships and sample size concerns, addressing gender and sexual identity, recruiting respondents, and choosing comparison groups for studies of same-sex relationships. In the third section we discuss promising strategies for future research on same-sex relationships, with a focus on gendered relational contexts and dyadic research designs, quasi-experimental designs, and a relationship biography approach.

We hope that this article, by drawing on multiple perspectives and methods in the study of same-sex relationships, will advance future research on same-sex unions. Although we discuss details of specific studies, the present article is not intended to be a comprehensive review of research findings on same-sex relationships; our primary focus is on data concerns and methodological strategies. We refer readers to several outstanding reviews of research on same-sex relationships (see, e.g., Kurdek, 2005 ; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Rothblum, 2009 ).

Data and Methods: General Approaches

In the face of challenges to research on same-sex relationships, including the past failure of federally supported data collections to include measures that clearly identify same-sex relationships, scholars have been creative in data collection and methodological strategies for research. In most analyses that use probability samples and quantitative methods, social scientists analyze data from individuals in same-sex relationships (e.g., Joyner, Manning, & Bogle, 2013 ), but a number of nonprobability studies (qualitative and quantitative) include data from partners within couples (e.g., Moore, 2008 ; Totenhagen, Butler, & Ridley, 2012 ). Both approaches are essential to advancing our understanding of same-sex relationships.

Research on Individuals

Studies on individuals in same-sex relationships, especially those in which nationally representative data are used, have been essential in evaluating similarities and differences between individuals in same-sex relationships and different-sex relationships. For major data sets that can be used to study individuals in same-sex relationships, readers may turn to several overviews that address sample size and measures that are available to identify those in same-sex relationships (see Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000 ; Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Institute of Medicine, 2011 ). These data sets have produced information on the demographic characteristics ( Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Gates, 2013b ) and the health and economic well-being of individuals in same-sex relationships ( Badgett, Durso, & Schneebaum, 2013 ; Denney, Gorman, & Barrera, 2013 ; Gonzales & Blewett, 2014 ; Liu, Reczek, & Brown, 2013 ). For example, Wight and colleagues ( Wight, LeBlanc, & Badgett, 2013 ) analyzed data from the California Health Interview Survey and found that being married was associated with lower levels of psychological distress for individuals in same-sex relationships as well as those in different-sex relationships. Given the decades of research showing the many benefits of marriage for men and women in different-sex relationships ( Waite, 1995 ), research on the possible benefits of marriage for individuals in same-sex relationships is an important endeavor. However, in contrast to research on different-sex partnerships, scholars lack longitudinal data from probability samples that enable analysis of the consequences of same-sex relationships for health outcomes over time.

Most probability samples used to study individuals in same-sex relationships have not been designed to assess relationship dynamics or other psychosocial variables (e.g., social support, stress) that influence relationships; thus, these data sets do not include measures that are most central to the study of close relationships, and they do not include measures specific to same-sex couples (e.g., minority stressors, legal policies) that may help explain any group differences that emerge. As a result, most qualitative and quantitative studies addressing questions about same-sex relationship dynamics have relied on smaller, nonprobability samples. Although these studies are limited in generalizability, a number of findings have been replicated across data sets (including longitudinal and cross-sectional qualitative and quantitative designs). For example, studies consistently indicate that same-sex partners share household labor more equally than do different-sex partners and that individuals in same- and different-sex relationships report similar levels of relationship satisfaction and conflict (see reviews in Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Peplau, Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004 ). One nationally representative longitudinal data set, How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST), includes a question about relationship quality, and is unique in that it oversamples Americans in same-sex couples ( Rosenfeld, Thomas, & Falcon, 2011 & 2014 ). The HCMST data make it possible to address questions about relationship stability over time, finding, for example, that same-sex and different-sex couples have similar break-up rates once marital status is taken into account ( Rosenfeld 2014 ).

Research on Same-Sex Couples

Data sets that include information from both partners in a relationship (i.e., dyadic data) allow researchers to look within relationships to compare partners’ behaviors, reports, and perceptions across a variety of outcomes. Therefore, dyadic data have been used to advance our understanding of same-sex partner dynamics. Researchers have analyzed dyadic data from same-sex partners using diverse methods, including surveys ( Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2011a ), in-depth interviews ( Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ), ethnographies ( Moore, 2008 ), and narrative analysis ( Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2011b ). A few nonprobability samples that include dyadic data have also incorporated a longitudinal design (e.g., Kurdek, 2006 ; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004 ).

In some dyadic studies data have been collected from both partners separately, focusing on points of overlap and differences between partners’ accounts, studying such issues as the symbolic meaning of legal unions for same-sex couples ( Reczek, Elliott, & Umberson, 2009 ; Rothblum et al., 2011b ), parenting experiences ( Goldberg, Kinkler, Richardson, & Downing, 2011 ), intimacy dynamics ( Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, in press ), interracial relationship dynamics ( Steinbugler, 2010 ), partners’ interactions around health behavior ( Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ), and relationship satisfaction and closeness ( Totenhagen et al., 2012 ). In contrast, other studies have collected data from partners simultaneously, through joint interviews, experiments, or ethnographic observations, focusing on interactions between partners or partners’ collective responses. For example, researchers have used observational methods to provide unique insights into same-sex couples’ conflict styles ( Gottman, 1993 ), division of household labor ( Moore, 2008 ), and coparenting interactions ( Farr & Patterson, 2013 ).

Challenges and Strategies for Studying Same-Sex Relationships

Although current data are characterized by several limitations, this is no reason to avoid the study of same-sex relationships. Indeed, it is important to triangulate a range of qualitative and quantitative research designs and sources of data in efforts to identify consistent patterns in same-sex relationships across studies and to draw on innovative strategies that add to our knowledge of same-sex relationships. In the sections that follow we point to some specific challenges to, advances in, and strategies for research on same-sex relationships.

Identifying Individuals in Same-Sex Relationships

Researchers must accurately identify people who are in same-sex relationships if they are to produce valid results and/or allow comparison of results across studies, both of which are necessary to inform sound public policy ( Bates & DeMaio, 2013 ; DiBennardo & Gates, 2014 ). In most nonprobability studies researchers have relied on volunteer samples and respondents’ self-identification as gay or lesbian. Such samples are more likely to include individuals who are open about their sexual orientation and socioeconomically privileged ( Gates & Badgett, 2006 ). Studies that rely on probability samples (e.g., the General Social Survey, the U.S. Census) raise different concerns because these samples were not originally designed to identify people in same-sex relationships and do not directly ask about the sexual orientation or sex of partners. As a result, to identify individuals in same-sex relationships researchers have juxtaposed information about sex of household head, relationship of head of household to other household members, and sex of those household members, a strategy that can result in substantial misidentification of individuals in same- and different-sex relationships (see discussions in Bates & DeMaio, 2013 , and DiBennardo & Gates, 2014 ; for strategies to adjust for misidentification, see Gates & Cook, 2011 ).

A particularly problematic approach for identifying individuals in same-sex relationships is the use of proxy reports . This approach assumes that children (or other proxies) have valid knowledge of other persons’ (e.g., parents’) sexual and relationship histories and is highly likely to produce invalid or biased results ( Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013 ). For example, a recent study ( Regnerus, 2012 ), which purportedly showed adverse effects of same-sex parents on children, has been widely criticized for using retrospective proxy reports from adult children to identify a parent as having ever been involved in a same-sex relationship (for a critique, see Perrin et al., 2013 ). Although the findings from this study have been largely discredited ( Perrin et al., 2013 ), the results have been used as evidence in legal proceedings geared toward forestalling same-sex partners’ efforts to adopt children or legally marry (e.g., American Sociological Association, 2013 ; DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 ; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 ). This use of social science research highlights the importance of adhering to best practices for research on same-sex relationships (which several U.S.-based surveys are implementing), including directly asking respondents if they have a same-sex partner and allowing for multiple response options for union status (e.g., legal marriage, registered domestic partnership, civil union, cohabitation, and living-apart-together relationships; Bates & DeMaio, 2013 ; Festy, 2008 ).

Sample Size

An additional challenge is the small number of people in same-sex relationships, making it difficult to recruit substantial numbers of respondents and to achieve racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity in samples of persons in same-sex relationships ( Black et al., 2000 ; Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; for additional strategies, see Cheng & Powell, 2005 ). One strategy to deal with small samples of individuals in same-sex relationships has been to pool data across years or data sets to obtain a sufficient number of cases for analysis (e.g., Denney et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2013 ; Wienke & Hill, 2009 ). For example, using pooled data from the National Health Interview Survey, Liu and colleagues (2013) found that socioeconomic status suppressed the health disadvantage of same-sex cohabitors compared with different-sex married adults. Other studies have pooled data across different states to achieve larger and more representative samples, focusing especially on states with higher concentrations of same-sex couples. For example, Blosnich and Bossarte (2009) aggregated 3 years of state-level data from 24 states to compare rates and consequences of intimate partner violence) in same- and different-sex relationships and found that victims of intimate partner violence report poorer health outcomes regardless of sex of perpetrator.

Gender and Sexual Identity

Since the publication of Jessie Bernard’s (1982) classic work on “his” and “her” marriage, social scientists have identified gender as a driving predictor of relationship experiences ( Umberson, Chen, House, Hopkins, & Slaten, 1996 ). Studies of same- and different-sex relationships usually rely on self-reports of sex/gender that allow for one of two choices: male or female. But current scholarship highlights the need to go beyond the male–female binary to take into account transgender and transsexual identities by measuring sex assigned at birth and current sex or gender ( Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, 2014 ; Pfeffer, 2010 ) and to measure both gender identity (i.e., psychological sense of self) and gender presentation (i.e., external expressions, e.g., physical appearance, clothing choices, and deepness of voice; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ). This approach pushes us to think about how gender identity and presentation might shape or modify relationship experiences of partners within same- and different-sex relationships. For example, gender identity may be more important than sex in driving housework (in)equality between partners in both same- and different-sex relationships. Scholars can further consider how these aspects of gender and sexuality may vary across diverse populations.

Similarly, studies need to include questions about multiple aspects of sexuality (e.g., desires, behavior, identity) in order to capture a fuller range of diversity. For example, this would allow for the examination of differences between people in same-sex relationships who identify as bisexual and those who identify as gay or lesbian; individuals in mixed-orientation marriages (e.g., bisexual men married to heterosexual women) may experience unique difficulties and relationship strategies ( Wolkomir, 2009 ). Failing to consider gender identity and presentation as well as sexual identity and orientation may also cause researchers to misidentify some same-sex relationships and overlook important sources of diversity among same- and different-sex relationships ( Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ). Attention to gender identity and presentation in future research will lead to a more nuanced understanding of gendered dynamics within different- as well as same-sex relationships.

Recruitment Challenges

Recruiting people for studies of same-sex relationships poses several unique challenges beyond typical recruitment concerns. In particular, because of past discrimination, people in same-sex relationships may not trust researchers to present research findings in fair and accurate ways, keep findings confidential and anonymous, or present findings in ways that will not stigmatize same-sex couples and bolster legislation that limits the rights of same-sex partners ( McCormack, 2014 ; Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ). Recruiting both partners in same-sex couples is even more challenging; even if one partner agrees to participate in a study, past experiences of discrimination or not being “out” may lead the other partner to avoid taking part in the study.

Past strategies have included working with community partners (e.g., local lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups) to help researchers establish trust and opportunities for recruitment, in particular when recruiting more targeted samples based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status (e.g., Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ; Moore, 2008 ). Researchers also can take advantage of information regarding the geographic distribution of same-sex couples in the United States to collect data in areas with higher concentrations of same-sex couples and racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity ( Black et al., 2000 ; Gates, 2010 ). Online recruitment may also facilitate study participation; greater anonymity and ease of participation with online surveys compared to face-to-face data collection may increase the probability that individuals in same-sex unions and same-sex couples will participate in studies ( Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ; Riggle, Rostosky, & Reedy, 2005 ).

Comparison Group Challenges

Decisions about the definition and composition of comparison groups in studies that compare same-sex relationships to different-sex relationships are critical because same-sex couples are demographically distinct from different-sex couples; individuals in same-sex couples are younger, more educated, more likely to be employed, less likely to have children, and slightly more likely to be female than individuals in different-sex couples ( Gates, 2013b ). For example, researchers may erroneously conclude that relationship dynamics differ for same- and different-sex couples when it is in fact parental status differences between same- and different-sex couples that shape relationship dynamics. Three specific comparison group considerations that create unique challenges—and opportunities—for research on same-sex relationships include (a) a shifting legal landscape, (b) parental status, and (c) unpartnered individuals.

Shifting legal landscape

As legal options have expanded for same-sex couples, more studies have compared people in same-sex marriages and civil unions (or registered domestic partnerships) with people in different-sex married partnerships (e.g., Solomon et al., 2004 ). Yet because legal options vary across states and over time, the same statuses are not available to all same-sex couples. This shifting legal landscape introduces significant challenges, in particular for scholars who attempt to compare same-sex couples with different-sex couples, because most same-sex couples have not married (or even had the option of marrying), whereas most different-sex couples have had ample opportunity to marry.

One strategy for addressing this complexity is to collect data in states that legally acknowledge same-sex partnerships. For example, Rothblum and colleagues ( Rothblum et al., 2011a ; Solomon et al., 2004 ) contacted all couples who entered civil unions in Vermont in 2000–2001, and same-sex couples who agreed to participate then nominated their siblings in either different-sex marriages or noncivil union same-sex relationships for participation in the study. This design, which could be adapted for qualitative or quantitative studies, allowed the researchers to compare three types of couples and address potentially confounding variables (e.g., cohort, socioeconomic status, social networks) by matching same-sex couples in civil unions with network members who were similar on these background variables. Gates and Badgett (2006) argued that future research comparing different legal statuses and legal contexts across states will help us better understand what is potentially unique about marriage (e.g., whether there are health benefits associated with same-sex marriage compared to same-sex cohabitation).

A related challenge is that same-sex couples in legal unions may have cohabited for many years but been in a legal union for a short time because legal union status became available only recently. This limits investigation into the implications of same-sex marriage given that marriage is conflated with relationship duration. One strategy for dealing with this is to match same- and different-sex couples in the same legal status (e.g., marriage) on total relationship duration rather than the amount of time in their current status (e.g., cohabiting, married, or other legal status; Umberson et al., in press ). An additional complication is that historical changes in legal options for persons in same-sex relationships contribute to different relationship histories across successive birth cohorts, an issue we address later, in our discussion of relationship biography and directions for future research. Future studies might also consider whether access to legal marriage influences the stability and duration of same-sex relationships, perhaps using quasi-experimental methods (also discussed below).

Parental status and kinship systems

Individuals in same-sex relationships are nested within larger kinship systems, in particular those that include children and parents, and family dynamics may diverge from patterns found for individuals in different-sex relationships ( Ocobock, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ; Reczek, 2014 ). For example, some studies suggest that, compared with individuals in different-sex relationships, those in same-sex relationships experience more strain and less contact with their families of origin ( Rothblum, 2009 ). Marriage holds great symbolic significance that may alter how others, including family members, view and interact with individuals in same-sex unions ( Badgett, 2009 ). Past research shows that individuals in different-sex marriages are more involved with their family of origin than are those in different-sex cohabiting unions. Future research should further explore how the transition from cohabitation to marriage alters relationships with other family members (including relationships with families of origin) for those in same-sex unions ( Ocobock, 2013 ).

Although a full discussion of data and methodological issues concerning larger kinship systems is beyond the scope of this article (see Ocobock, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ), we focus on one aspect of kinship—parental status—to demonstrate some important comparison group considerations. Parental status varies for same- and different-sex couples and can confound differences between these two groups as well as within groups of same-sex couples (e.g., comparing men with men to women with women). Moreover, because having children contributes to relationship stability for different-sex couples, parental status differences between same- and different-sex couples could contribute to differences in relationship stability ( Joyner et al., 2013 ). Same-sex couples are less likely than different-sex couples to be raising children, although this distinction is diminishing, albeit modestly ( Gates, 2013b ). In 2010, about 19% of same-sex couples had children under age 18 in the home, compared with about 43% of different-sex couples ( Gates, 2013b ). Same-sex partners living with children are also more likely to be female than male and tend to be more economically disadvantaged and to be from racial minority groups than same-sex couples without children ( Gates, 2013a ). Pathways to parenthood are diverse among same-sex couples (e.g., surrogacy, adoption, biological child of one partner from previous relationship), and these pathways differ by age and cohort, gender, race, and socioeconomic status, all factors that may influence parenting experiences ( Brewster, Tillman, & Jokinen-Gordon, 2014 ; Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). For example, most gay fathers over age 50 had their children within the context of heterosexual marriage, whereas most gay fathers under age 50 became fathers through foster care or adoption ( Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). A history of different-sex marriage and divorce may influence current relationship dynamics for individuals in same-sex unions.

One strategy for addressing parental status is to match same- and different-sex comparison groups on parental status so that parents are compared with parents and nonparents are compared with nonparents (e.g., Kurdek, 2004 ). This strategy has the advantage of reducing uncontrolled-variable bias owing to parental status (for quantitative studies) and yields unique insights into the experiences of same- and different-sex parents and/or nonparents (for qualitative and quantitative studies). A second strategy for quantitative researchers is to consider parental status as potentially confounding or moderating the effects of union status on selected outcomes. For example, Denney and colleagues (2013) found that parental status is an important moderator in understanding health disparities between women in same-sex and different-sex relationships, in that having children was associated with poorer health for women in same-sex relationships than for women in different-sex relationships.

We further recommend that social scientists understand—and embrace—the diverse ways that parental status varies across union types. It is impossible to fully eliminate uncontrolled-variable bias, and we know that same-sex partners who are parents differ in other important ways from different-sex partners, in particular in terms of sociodemographic characteristics. Moreover, many same-sex partners did not have the option of becoming parents because of barriers to adoption as well as a lack of access to or the prohibitive cost of reproductive technologies, and this unique history shapes their relationship experiences ( Brewster et al., 2014 ). In fact, attempting to “control away” the experience of parental status may mask differences in the lived experiences of same- and different-sex partners. Future research should take into account cohort differences in pathways to (and probability of) parenthood for same-sex partners, in particular in connection with intimate relationship experiences (also see Biblarz & Savci, 2010 ; Brewster et al., 2014 ; Goldberg, Smith, & Kashy, 2010 ; Patterson & Riskind, 2010 ). Researchers could also compare parenthood and relationship experiences in geographic regions that differ on attitudes toward same-sex relationships and families.

Unpartnered individuals

Very few studies have compared individuals in same-sex relationships with their unpartnered counterparts, that is, single men and women with similar attractions, behaviors, and identities. Yet the comparison of partnered to unpartnered persons has led to some of the most fundamental findings about different-sex relationships, showing, for example, that married and cohabiting different-sex partners are wealthier, healthier, and live longer than the unmarried ( Waite, 1995 ). Recent quantitative studies that have considered the unpartnered as a comparison group have found that those in same-sex relationships report better health than those who are widowed, divorced, or never married ( Denney et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2013 ). Unfortunately, owing to a lack of information on sexual identity/orientation in most available probability data, individuals in same- and different-sex relationships have been compared with unpartnered persons regardless of the unpartnered person’s sexual orientation or relationship history. Furthermore, studies that focus on sexual orientation and health seldom consider whether such associations differ for the unpartnered versus partnered. Given the substantial evidence that close social ties are central to health and quality of life ( Umberson & Montez, 2010 ), and the relative absence of research comparing individuals in same-sex partnerships to their unpartnered counterparts, research designs that compare those in same-sex relationships to the unpartnered will provide many opportunities for future research. Data collections that focus on individuals who transition between an unpartnered status to a same-sex relationship may be particularly fruitful. For example, given different levels of social recognition and stress exposure, researchers may find that relationship formation (and dissolution) affects individuals from same- and different-sex relationships in different ways.

Future Directions for Research on Same-Sex Relationships

We now turn to three strategies that may help catalyze current theoretical and analytical energy and innovation in research on same-sex relationships: (a) gendered relational contexts and dyadic data analysis, (b) quasi-experimental designs, and (c) the relationship biography approach.

Gendered Relational Contexts and Dyadic Data Analysis

Gender almost certainly plays an important role in shaping relationship dynamics for same-sex couples, but gender is often conflated with gendered relational contexts in studies that compare same- and different-sex couples. For example, women with men may experience their relationships very differently from women with women, and these different experiences may reflect the respondent’s own gender (typically viewed in terms of a gender binary) and/or the gendered context of their relationship (i.e., being a woman in relation to a woman or a woman in relation to a man). A gender-as-relational perspective ( C. West & Zimmerman, 2009 ) suggests a shift from the focus on gender to a focus on gendered relational contexts that differentiates (at least) four groups for comparison in qualitative and quantitative research: (a) men in relationships with men, (b) men in relationships with women, (c) women in relationships with women, and (d) women in relationships with men (see also Goldberg, 2013 ; Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, in press ). Indeed, some scholars argue that unbiased gender effects in quantitative studies of relationships cannot be estimated unless researchers include men and women in different- and same-sex couples so that effects for the four aforementioned groups can be estimated ( T. V. West, Popp, & Kenny, 2008 ). Similarly, others emphasize same-sex couples as an important counterfactual to different-sex couples in broadening our understanding of gender and relationships ( Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Joyner et al., 2013 ; Moore, 2008 ). For example, recent qualitative research has shown that although gender drives differences in the way individuals view emotional intimacy (with women desiring more permeable boundaries between partners in both same- and different-sex contexts), gendered relational contexts drive the types of emotion work that individuals do to promote intimacy in their relationships (with women with men and men with men doing more emotion work to sustain boundaries between partners; Umberson et al., in press ). A gender-as-relational perspective also draws on intersectionality research ( Collins, 1999 ) to emphasize that gendered interactions reflect more than the gender of each partner; instead, gendered experiences vary depending on other aspects of social location (e.g., the experience of gender may depend on gender identity).

Dyadic data analysis

Although quite a few nonprobability samples (qualitative and quantitative) include data from both partners in relationships, many of these studies have analyzed individuals rather than adopting methods that are designed to analyze dyadic data (for quantitative exceptions, see Clausell & Roisman, 2009 ; Parsons, Starks, Gamarel, & Grov, 2012 ; Totenhagen et al., 2012 ; for qualitative exceptions, see Moore, 2008 ; Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ; Umberson et al, in press ). Yet leading family scholars call for more research that analyzes dyadic-/couple-level data ( Carr & Springer, 2010 ). Dyadic data and methods provide a promising strategy for studying same- and different-sex couples across gendered relational contexts and for further considering how gender identity and presentation matter across and within these contexts. We now touch on some unique elements of dyadic data analysis for quantitative studies of same-sex couples, but we refer readers elsewhere for comprehensive guides to analyzing quantitative dyadic data, both in general ( Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006 ) and specifically for same-sex couples ( Smith, Sayer, & Goldberg, 2013 ), and for analyzing qualitative dyadic data ( Eisikovits & Koren, 2010 ).

Many approaches to analyzing dyadic data require that members of a dyad be distinguishable from each other ( Kenny et al., 2006 ). Studies that examine gender effects in different-sex couples can distinguish dyad members on the basis of sex of partner, but sex of partner cannot be used to distinguish between members of same-sex dyads. To estimate gender effects in multilevel models comparing same- and different-sex couples, researchers can use the factorial method developed by T. V. West and colleagues (2008) . This approach calls for the inclusion of three gender effects in a given model: (a) gender of respondent, (b) gender of partner, and (c) the interaction between gender of respondent and gender of partner. Goldberg and colleagues (2010) used this method to illustrate gendered dynamics of perceived parenting skills and relationship quality across same- and different-sex couples before and after adoption and found that both same- and different-sex parents experience a decline in relationship quality during the first years of parenting but that women experience steeper declines in love across relationship types.

Dyadic diary data

Dyadic diary methods may provide particular utility in advancing our understanding of gendered relational contexts. These methods involve the collection of data from both partners in a dyad, typically via short daily questionnaires, over a period of days or weeks ( Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013 ). This approach is ideal for examining relationship dynamics that unfold over short periods of time (e.g., the effect of daily stress levels on relationship conflict) and has been used extensively in the study of different-sex couples, in particular to examine gender differences in relationship experiences and consequences. Totenhagen et al. (2012) also used diary data to study men and women in same-sex couples and found that daily stress was significantly and negatively correlated with relationship closeness, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction in similar ways for men and women. Diary data collected from both partners in same- and different-sex contexts would make it possible for future studies to conduct longitudinal analyses of daily fluctuations in reciprocal relationship dynamics and outcomes as well as to consider whether and how these processes vary by gendered relationship context and are potentially moderated by gender identity and gender presentation.

Quasi-Experimental Designs

Quasi-experimental designs that test the effects of social policies on individuals and couples in same-sex relationships provide another promising research strategy. These designs provide a way to address questions of causal inference by looking at data across place (i.e., across state and national contexts) and over time—in particular, before and after the implementation of exclusionary (e.g., same-sex marriage bans) or inclusionary (e.g., legalization of same-sex marriage) policies ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, & Hasin, 2009 ; Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, & Hasin, 2010 ; see Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 , regarding quasi-experimental methods). This approach turns the methodological challenge of a constantly changing legal landscape into an exciting opportunity to consider how social policies influence relationships and how this influence may vary across age cohorts. For example, researchers might test the effects of policy implementation on relationship quality or marriage formation across age cohorts.

Quasi-experimental designs have not yet been applied to the study of same-sex relationship outcomes, but a number of recent studies point to the potential for innovation. Hatzenbuehler has been at the forefront of research using quasi-experimental designs to consider how same-sex marriage laws influence health care expenditures for sexual minority men ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ) and psychopathology in sexual minority populations ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010 ). For example, he found that the effect of marriage policy change on health care use and costs was similar for gay and bisexual men who were unpartnered and those who were in same-sex relationships ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ). He and his colleagues have noted that the challenges of a quasi-experimental approach include dealing with the constraints of measures available in existing data sets before and after policy implementation and the difficulty (or impossibility) of knowing when particular policies will be implemented, as well as limitations associated with lack of random assignment and changes other than policy shifts that occur during the same time period and may influence results ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009 , 2010 , 2012 ). One strategy for addressing the latter challenge is to test the plausibility of alternative explanations; for example, Hatzenbuehler et al. (2012) examined whether other co-occurring changes could explain their findings (e.g., changes in health care use among all Massachusetts residents). Future studies could also follow up on prior qualitative and quantitative data collections to compare individual and relationship experiences of interest (e.g., relationship satisfaction) before and after policy changes (e.g., repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act).

Quasi-experimental designs are also useful for identifying mechanisms (e.g., stress) that explain different outcomes across and within couples. Sexual minority populations face higher rates of stress, stigma, and discrimination both at the individual and institutional level, as described by Meyer’s (2003) minority stress model. Measures that tap into minority stress and discrimination could be incorporated in future studies as a way to better understand same-sex relationship dynamics and outcomes for individuals and dyads (see LeBlanc, Frost, & White, 2015 ). For example, Frost and Meyer (2009) found that higher levels of internalized homophobia were associated with worse relationship quality for lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and women. These associations could be evaluated before and after key policy changes. Moreover, this approach could use dyadic data to assess the effects of policy change on couples and individuals in same- and different-sex relationships ( LeBlanc et al., 2015 ).

Relationship Biography Approach

In closing, we suggest that a relationship biography approach —that is, focusing on temporal changes in relationship statuses and other components of relationship histories, such as relationship durations—be used as an organizing framework to drive future qualitative and quantitative research and studies of individuals as well as partner dyads. The life course perspective ( Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003 ) has been used to guide a relationship biography approach in studies of different-sex couples (e.g., Hughes & Waite, 2009 ) and could offer great utility in addressing key challenges of research on same-sex couples ( Institute of Medicine, 2011 ). In particular, a relationship biography approach could take into account the constantly changing legal landscape and relationship status options for same-sex couples, the varying amounts of time it would be possible to spend in those statuses (both over time and across geographic areas/states/nations), and cohort differences. A biographical approach would address these challenges by considering three things: (a) multiple relationship statuses over the life course; (b) duration of time in each relationship status; and (c) history of transitions into and out of relationships, as well as timing of those transitions in the life course. We further suggest that change in relationship quality over time be considered as a component of relationship biography. The biographical frame can be used with different theoretical approaches, is multidisciplinary in scope, urges multiple and intersecting research methods, and emphasizes diversity in life course experiences.

In considering an individual’s relationship biography over the life course, information on the legal status (e.g., civil union, registered domestic partnership) of each of his or her unions could be collected. Although the available evidence is mixed, some studies suggest that same-sex unions dissolve more quickly than do different-sex unions ( Lau, 2012 ). However, we do not yet have extensive biographical evidence about the duration of same-sex unions in the United States, or how access to marriage might influence relationship duration. By taking into account relationship duration and transitions out of significant relationships, future research could also address the predictors, experiences, and consequences of relationship dissolution through death or breakup, experiences that have not been adequately explored in past research on same-sex couples ( Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Rothblum, 2009 ). A relationship biography approach could also take into account gender identity and sexual identity transitions. Prior qualitative research suggests that one partner’s gender transition has important implications for relationship dynamics (e.g., the division of labor) as well as relationship formation and dissolution ( Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ; Pfeffer, 2010 ).

Relationship biography is fundamentally shaped by birth cohort, race/ethnicity, gender and transgender identity, social class, and former as well as current sexual orientation. Older cohorts of people in same-sex relationships, who formed their relationships in an era of significantly greater discrimination and no legal recognition for same-sex couples, may differ dramatically from younger cohorts ( LeBlanc et al., 2015 ; Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). Unique historical backdrops result in different relationship histories (e.g., number of years cohabiting prior to marriage, shifts in sexual orientation, risk for HIV, and effects on relationship dynamics), parenting experiences, and, potentially, relationship quality for younger and older cohorts. Thus, age, period, and cohort variation are important to consider in future studies of same-sex relationships ( Gotta et al., 2011 ).

A biographical approach should incorporate information on relationship quality. Studies of different-sex couples show that relationship quality is linked to relationship duration and transitions, as well as mental and physical health ( Choi & Marks, 2013 ; Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006 ). Currently, most national data sets that include information on relationship dynamics (e.g., the National Survey of Families and Households, the Health and Retirement Survey) do not include sufficient numbers of same-sex couples to allow valid statistical analysis. Incorporating relationship quality measures into representative data sets will contribute to a better understanding of the predictors and consequences of relationship quality for same-sex partnerships, the links between relationship quality and relationship duration and transitions, and relationship effects on psychological and physical well-being. A relationship biography can be obtained retrospectively in cross-sectional data collections or assessed longitudinally as relationships evolve over time. A relationship biography approach would benefit from including an unpartnered comparison group, taking into account previous relationship statuses. A biographical approach might also be used in future research to consider the impact of structural changes (in addition to personal or relationship changes), such as change in public policies or moving to/from a geographic area with laws/policies that support same-sex relationships.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health, see www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth ) provides a promising opportunity for studying same-sex relationship biographies in the future. This nationally representative study of adolescents (beginning in 1994) has followed respondents into young adulthood; respondents were, on average, age 28 in the most recent survey. Add Health includes measures of same-sex attraction, sexual identity, and histories of same- and different-sex relationships, allowing for detailed analysis of the lives of young adults. A biographical approach directs attention to relationship formation throughout the life course, and Add Health data may be useful for studies of relationship formation. For example, Ueno (2010) used Add Health data to incorporate the idea of life course transitions into a study of shifts in sexual orientation among adolescents over time and found that moving from different-sex relationships to same-sex relationships was correlated with worse mental health than continually dating same-sex partners. A focus on relationship transitions between same- and different-sex relationships over the life course builds on theoretical and empirical work on the fluidity of sexual attraction ( Diamond, 2008 ; Savin-Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012 ). Bisexual patterns of sexual attraction and behavior (which are more common than exclusive same-sex sexuality) and transitions between same- and different-sex unions and the timing of those transitions are important, but understudied, research topics ( Biblarz & Savci, 2010 ) that could be addressed through a relationship biography lens. For example, future studies could consider the ages at which these transitions are most likely to occur, duration of same- and different-sex unions, relationship quality experiences, and effects on individual well-being. Men and women may differ in these relationship experiences; women seem to be more situationally dependent and fluid in their sexuality than are men ( Diamond, 2008 ; Savin-Williams et al., 2012 ).

Researchers have also used Add Health data to study same-sex romantic attraction and substance use ( Russell, Driscoll, & Truong, 2002 ), same-sex dating and mental health ( Ueno, 2010 ), and same-sex intimate partner violence ( Russell, Franz, & Driscoll, 2001 ). As respondents age, the Add Health project will become even more valuable to a relationship biography approach. For example, Meier and colleagues ( Meier, Hull, & Ortyl, 2009 ) compared relationship values of heterosexual youth with those of sexual minority youth; follow-up studies could assess whether these differences in values influence relationships throughout adulthood. Data for studying relationship biographies of older cohorts of same-sex couples are sorely lacking at the national level. Investigators certainly must continue to push for funding to include same-sex relationships in new and ongoing data collections. Scholars who have collected data from individuals in same-sex relationships in the past should also consider returning to their original respondents for longitudinal follow-up, as well as follow-up with respondents’ partners (e.g., Rothblum et al., 2011a ).

Research on same-sex relationships is in a period of intense discovery and enlightenment, and advances in the study of these relationships are sure to further our theoretical and empirical knowledge in family studies more broadly. Because of the diversity of same-sex couples and the increasing political and legal significance of who is in a same-sex relationship or family, it is essential to advance research that reflects professional and ethical standards as well as the diversity of same-sex couples ( Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013 ). Decades of federally funded research have enriched the available data on different-sex couples, yet current longitudinal data on same-sex couples are comparable to those gained through research on different-sex couples 30 or more years ago. Investment in future data collections will be essential to advancing knowledge on same-sex couples. Although there is much that we can learn from data collections and methods used to study different-sex couples, we should not simply superimpose those procedures onto the study of same-sex couples. Indeed, as we have discussed, some research questions, measures, and sample composition issues are unique to the study of same-sex relationships and require novel approaches.

Most people yearn for and value an intimate relationship and, once established, a cohabiting, marital, or romantic union becomes a defining feature of their lives. Relationships inevitably go through ups and downs. At some points, partners impose stress on each other, and at other times they provide invaluable emotional support. Over the life course, relationships are formed, sustained, and inevitably ended through breakup or death, with profound effects on individuals and families. Family scholars must design studies that address same-sex partner dating and relationship formation as well as relationship losses and transitions throughout life, with all the vicissitudes therein. In this article we have identified contemporary challenges to research on same-sex relationships and suggested strategies for beginning to address those challenges in order to capture the fullness of lives as they are lived across diverse communities. We hope these strategies will inspire scholars to move the field forward in new and innovative ways.

Acknowledgments

We thank Justin Denney, Jennifer Glass, Mark Hatzenbuehler, Kara Joyner, Wendy Manning, Corinne Reczek, and Esther Rothblum for their helpful comments on this article. This research was supported, in part, by an Investigator in Health Policy Research Award to Debra Umberson from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Grant R21 AG044585, awarded to Debra Umberson in the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the National Institute on Aging; Grant 5 R24 HD042849, awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and Grant F32 HD072616, awarded to Rhiannon A. Kroeger in the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

• American Sociological Association. Brief of amicus curiae American Sociological Association in support of respondent Kristin M. Perry and respondent Edith Schlain Windsor. Washington, DC: Author; 2013. Retrieved from www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Badgett MVL. When gay people get married. New York: New York University Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Badgett MVL, Durso LE, Schneebaum A. New patterns of poverty in the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates N, DeMaio TJ. Measuring same-sex relationships. Contexts. 2013; 12 :66–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard J. The future of marriage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Savci E. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :480–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D, Gates G, Sanders S, Taylor L. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography. 2000; 37 :139–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blosnich JR, Bossarte RM. Comparisons of intimate partner violence among partners in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99 :2182–2184. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolger N, Laurenceau J. Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewster KL, Tillman KH, Jokinen-Gordon H. Demographic characteristics of lesbian parents in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review. 2014; 33 :503–526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter C, Gates GJ. Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from California. Demography. 2008; 45 :573–590. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr D, Springer KW. Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :743–761. [ Google Scholar ]
• Center of Excellence for Transgender Health. Recommendations for inclusive data collection of trans people in HIV prevention, care, and services. 2014 Retrieved from http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/trans?page=lib-data-collection .
• Cheng S, Powell B. Small samples, big challenges: Studying atypical family forms. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 :926–935. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi H, Marks NF. Marital quality, socioeconomic status, and physical health. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013; 75 :903–919. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clausell E, Roisman GI. Outness, Big Five personality traits, and same-sex relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2009; 26 :211–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins PH. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (ED Mich. 2014).
• Denney JT, Gorman BK, Barrera CB. Families, resources, and adult health: Where do sexual minorities fit? Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013; 54 :46–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond LM. Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiBennardo R, Gates GJ. Research note: U.S. Census same-sex couple data: Adjustments to reduce measurement error and empirical implications. Population Research and Policy Review. 2014; 33 :603–614. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder GH, Jr, Johnson MK, Crosnoe R. The emergence and development of life course theory. In: Mortimer JT, Shanahan MJ, editors. Handbook of the life course. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 2003. pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisikovits Z, Koren C. Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 :1642–1655. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development. 2013; 84 :1226–1240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Festy P. Enumerating same-sex couples in censuses and population registers. Demographic Research. 2008; 17 :339–368. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost DM, Meyer IH. Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2009; 56 :97–109. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. Geographic trends among same-sex couples in the US Census and the American Community Survey. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. LGBT parenting in the United States. Los Angeles. The Williams Institute; 2013a. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. Same-sex and different-sex couples in the American Community Survey: 2005–2011. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2013b. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ, Badgett MVL. Gay and lesbian families: A research agenda. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ, Cook AM. Census snapshot: 2010 methodology—Adjustment procedures for same-sex couple data. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE. “Doing” and “undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2013; 5 :85–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Kinkler LA, Richardson HB, Downing JB. Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples in open adoption arrangements: A qualitative study. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011; 73 :502–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Smith JZ, Kashy DA. Preadoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples’ relationship quality across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010; 24 :221–232. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzales G, Blewett LA. National and state-specific health insurance disparities for adults in same-sex relationships. American Journal of Public Health. 2014; 104 :e95–e104. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gotta G, Green R, Rothblum E, Solomon S, Balsam K, Schwartz P. Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male relationships: A comparison of couples in 1975 and 2000. Family Process. 2011; 50 :353–376. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM. The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1993; 61 :6–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99 :2275–2281. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, McLaughlin KA, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. The impact of institutional discrimination of psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health. 2010; 100 :452–459. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, O’Cleirigh C, Grasso C, Mayer K, Safren S, Bradford J. Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102 :285–291. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollingsworth v. Perry , 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013).
• Hughes ME, Waite LJ. Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2009; 50 :344–358. doi: 10.1177/002214650905000307. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine. The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyner K, Manning W, Bogle R. Working Paper. Center for Family and Demographic Research; Bowling Green, OH: 2013. The stability and qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples in young adulthood. Retrieved from http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2013-002/PWP-BGSU-2013-002.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kroeger RA, Smock PJ. Cohabitation: Recent research and implications. In: Treas JK, Scott J, Richards M, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to the sociology of families. 2. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014. pp. 217–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66 :880–900. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005; 14 :251–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006; 68 :509–528. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00268.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau CQ. The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 :973–988. [ Google Scholar ]
• LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, White RG. Minority stress and stress proliferation among same-sex and other marginalized couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015; 77 :xxx–xxx. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H, Reczek C, Brown DC. Same-sex cohabitation and self-rated health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013; 54 :25–45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCormack M. Innovative sampling and participant recruitment in sexuality research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2014; 31 :475–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meier A, Hull KE, Ortyl TA. Young adult relationship values at the intersection of gender and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71 :510–25. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :674–697. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer IH, Wilson PA. Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2009; 56 :23–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore MR. Gendered power relations among women: A study of household decision making in Black, lesbian stepfamilies. American Sociological Review. 2008; 73 :335–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore MR, Stambolis-Ruhstorfer M. LGBT sexuality and families at the start of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology. 2013; 39 :491–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ocobock A. The power and limits of marriage: Married gay men’s family relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013; 75 :91–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons JT, Starks TJ, Gamarel KE, Grov C. Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012; 26 :669–677. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62 :1052–1069. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Riskind RG. To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2010; 6 :326–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Tornello SL. Gay fathers’ pathways to parenthood: International perspectives. Journal of Family Research. 2010; 22 :103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peplau LA, Fingerhut AW. The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :405–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peplau LA, Fingerhut AW, Beals KP. Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In: Harvey JH, Wenzel A, Sprecher S, editors. Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 349–369. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perrin AJ, Cohen PN, Caren N. Are children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-differences hypothesis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. 2013; 17 :327–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeffer CA. “Women’s work”? Women partners of transgender men doing housework and emotion work. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :165–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C. The intergenerational relationships of gay men and lesbian women. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2014 Advance online publication. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C, Elliott S, Umberson D. Commitment without marriage: Union formation among long-term same-sex couples. Journal of Family Issues. 2009; 30 :738–756. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C, Umberson D. Gender, health behavior, and intimate relationships: Lesbian, gay, and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine. 2012; 74 :1783–1790. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regnerus M. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research. 2012; 41 :752–770. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riggle E, Rostosky SS, Reedy CS. Online surveys for BGLT research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality. 2005; 49 :1–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ. Couple Longevity in the Era of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014; 76 :905–918. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ, Falcon M. How Couples Meet and Stay Together, Waves 1, 2, and 3: Public version 3.04, plus wave 4 supplement version 1.02 [Computer files] Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries; 2011 & 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED. An overview of same-sex couples in relationships: A research area still at sea. In: Hope DA, editor. Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. New York: Springer; 2009. pp. 113–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED, Balsam KF, Solomon SE. The longest “legal” U.S. same-sex couples reflect on their relationships. Journal of Social Issues. 2011a; 67 :302–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED, Balsam KF, Solomon SE. Narratives of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont: The impact of legalizing relationships on couples and on social policy. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2011b; 8 :183–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Driscoll AK, Truong N. Adolescent same-sex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications for substance use and abuse. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 :198–202. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Franz BT, Driscoll AK. Same-sex romantic attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence. American Journal of Public Health. 2001; 91 :903–906. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savin-Williams RC, Joyner K, Rieger G. Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012; 41 :103–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JZ, Sayer AG, Goldberg AE. Multilevel modeling approaches to the study of LGBT-parent families: Methods for dyadic data analysis. In: Goldberg AE, Allen KR, editors. LGBT-parent families. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 307–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon SE, Rothblum ED, Balsam KF. Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004; 18 :275–286. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinbugler AC. Beyond loving: Intimate racework in lesbian, gay, and straight interracial relationships. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Totenhagen CJ, Butler EA, Ridley CA. Daily stress, closeness, and satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples. Personal Relationships. 2012; 19 :219–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ueno K. Same-sex experience and mental health during the transition between adolescence and young adulthood. Sociological Quarterly. 2010; 51 :484–510. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Chen MD, House JS, Hopkins K, Slaten E. The effect of social relationships on psychological well-being: Are men and women really so different? American Sociological Review. 1996; 61 :837–857. [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Montez JK. Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010; 51 :S54–S66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Thomeer MB, Lodge AC. Intimacy and emotion work in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family (in press) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Williams K, Powers DP, Liu H, Needham B. You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006; 47 :1–16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite LJ. Does marriage matter? Demography. 1995; 32 :483–507. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West C, Zimmerman DH. Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society. 2009; 23 :112–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• West TV, Popp D, Kenny DA. A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor–partner interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2008; 34 :321–336. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wienke C, Hill GJ. Does the “marriage benefit” extend to partners in gay and lesbian relationships? Journal of Family Issues. 2009; 30 :259–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wight RG, LeBlanc AJ, Badgett MVL. Same-sex legal marriage and psychological well-being: Findings from the California Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2013; 103 :339–346. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolkomir M. Making heteronormative reconciliations the story of romantic love, sexuality, and gender in mixed-orientation marriages. Gender & Society. 2009; 23 :494–519. [ Google Scholar ]

Advertisement

The Direct Effects of Legal Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: Evidence From Massachusetts

• Published: 08 September 2020
• Volume 57 , pages 1787–1808, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Christopher S. Carpenter 1  

672 Accesses

10 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

I provide evidence on the direct effects of legal same-sex marriage in the United States by studying Massachusetts, the first state to legalize it in 2004 by court order. Using confidential Massachusetts data from 2001–2013, I show that the ruling significantly increased marriage among lesbians, bisexual women, and gay men compared with the associated change for heterosexuals. I find no significant effects on coupling. Marriage take-up effects are larger for lesbians than for bisexual women or gay men and are larger for households with children than for households without children. Consistent with prior work in the United States and Europe, I find no reductions in heterosexual marriage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Legal recognition of same-sex couples and family formation.

Mircea Trandafir

The Anti-Social Effects of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage: Fact or Fiction?

Laura Langbein, Brandon Ranallo-Benavidez & Jane E. Palmer

Same-Sex Couples and Their Legalization in Europe: Laws and Numbers

Data availability.

The data sets analyzed for the current study are not publicly available, but researchers can contact the author for information on how to apply for access. Permission must be obtained by the Massachusetts Department of Health.

Throughout, I use the term “sexual minorities” to refer to people with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation or identity. Sexual orientation is a multi-faceted measure that encompasses aspects of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity (i.e., how one sees one’s self). For a discussion of these issues, see Laumann et al. ( 1994 ). A growing number of surveys ask respondents about one or more of these dimensions; the data I use below come from a survey that asks adults about sexual orientation.

See Badgett ( 2011 ) for qualitative evidence on the effects of access to legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and the Netherlands on social inclusion. Kolk and Andersson ( 2020 ) examine the effects of legal same-sex registered domestic partnership and legal same-sex marriage on union formation in Sweden using administrative data; they find that the country’s 2009 same-sex marriage policy had little effect on the rate of same-sex union formation.

Most prior demographic research on sexual minorities has relied on data that permit identification of same-sex couples in survey or administrative data (see, e.g., Alden et al. 2015 ; Andersson et al. 2006 ; Black et al. 2000 ; Jepsen and Jepsen 2002 ). The data sets used in these studies can generally not identify single sexual minorities, however, so they are unable to address union formation directly.

Badgett ( 2009 ) also studies the experience of the Netherlands through a series of qualitative interviews and also finds that gay marriage in that country did not have negative effects on different-sex marriage.

Ramos et al. ( 2009 ) also study the Massachusetts reform using data from an online survey sent to people on the mailing list of MassEquality, the state’s largest LGBT equality advocacy group. That study had a low response rate (4.2%) but found that most people in same-sex marriages were women (61%), which also matches the administrative records and my findings below.

To clarify, the national BRFSS core questionnaire does not currently include a question about sexual orientation. Moreover, no other BRFSS-based state surveys included questions about sexual orientation prior to Goodridge , so I cannot compare outcomes over time between Massachusetts and other states. This necessitates my use of a within-state control group (heterosexuals).

If the respondent were female, the word “gay” was replaced with “lesbian.” Other responses that were coded (but not offered as part of the question) were “don’t know/not sure” and “refused.” The main findings on marriage are not sensitive to how I treat individuals choosing these categories (i.e., I can exclude them, dummy them out separately, and/or make extreme assumptions such as assuming they are all gay or lesbian). The placement of the question changed between 2001 and 2002. In 2001 the sexual orientation question was asked at the end of a module on sexual behavior and sex practices. In 2002, the sexual orientation question was moved to the demographics section of the survey (after questions about education and income) where it has remained since.

Results from alternative estimation approaches returned similar results.

The MA-BRFSS provides sampling weights but changed its weighting scheme beginning in 2011 such that the weights are not comparable with the 2001–2010 data (Massachusetts Department of Health 2013 ). Models using the weights for 2001–2010 produced very similar results (Massachusetts Department of Health 2013 ).

This is notable given the long-run decline in marriage nationally (Stevenson and Wolfers 2007 ).

Figure A3 in the online appendix shows a small but noticeable increase in the likelihood that bisexual women report being married after 2004. Samples of bisexual men are extremely small overall and in any individual year; there is no discernable pattern for bisexual men in the figure. Notably, legal uncertainty immediately after marriage licenses were available to same-sex couples may have also led some same-sex couples to get married earlier than they otherwise would have because they feared that the anti-same-sex-marriage activism that was heightened after Goodridge put the availability of legal same-sex marriage in doubt.

Tables A1 and A2 in the online appendix provide a fuller set of coefficient estimates from estimation of Eq. ( 1 ) for women and men, respectively. Those tables show that marriage rates for heterosexual individuals exhibited a statistically insignificant increase after Goodridge . They also show that the interactions of the sexual minority indicators with the indicator for the period of legal uncertainty (i.e., DURING ) are not statistically significant with the exception of the relevant interactions for bisexual men, which produce implausibly large point estimates.

Notably, however, even after the Goodridge decision, legal groups continued to encourage second parent adoptions for the non-birth parent because parental rights might not be recognized outside of Massachusetts.

Using information on household sex composition and comparing only partnered bisexual women with exactly two adults in the household, I estimate a higher rate for the Massachusetts BRFSS data (about 22% of partnered bisexual women in two-adult households have two adult women and zero adult men in them), though the qualitative pattern that partnered bisexual women are more likely to have different-sex partners remains true.

Indeed, the lesbian couple who were the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case has since separated. I did estimate Eq. ( 1 ) where the outcome was an indicator variable for being divorced, and the interaction terms of interest were not statistically significant for lesbians or gay men. The same was true when I considered an outcome for being separated. See Gates et al. ( 2008 ) for a discussion of relationship dissolution patterns of same-sex couples.

For studies of the effect of legal same-sex marriage in the United States on labor market and health outcomes, see Sansone ( 2019 ), Hansen et al. ( 2020 ), and Carpenter et al. ( 2019 ).

Notwithstanding Romney’s position, there were news reports that out of state same-sex couples were flocking to Massachusetts to get married (Belluck 2004b , Cooperman and Finer 2004 ). Provincetown, for example, actively issued marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples in direct defiance of Romney’s order.

Badgett and Herman ( 2011 ) report that from July to December 2008, 37% of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts were to out of state residents, with 22% coming just from New York residents alone.

Specifically, in early years of the ACS, the U.S. Census Bureau changed a substantial share of marital status/relationship to household head responses for same-sex couple households under the (not unreasonable) assumption that two same-sex individuals could not have been legally married anywhere in the United States in the early 2000s. Writing about the 2000–2004 ACS data, Gates and Steinberger ( 2010 ) conclude: “[o]ur analyses demonstrate that same-sex couples identified in the public use ACS data suffer from a severe measurement error problem.” Although they conclude that ACS data on same-sex couples after 2005 are more reliable, this timing is problematic for the institutional features of this study since it entirely post-dates Goodridge .

Gates et al. ( 2008 ) show that civil unions in Vermont issued to out-of-state applicants fell substantially in 2004 after Massachusetts adopted same-sex marriage. Notably, civil unions to in-state applicants did not exhibit the same decline in 2004 (see their figure 7).

Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753.

Google Scholar  

Alden, L., Edlund, L., Hammarstedt, M., & Mueller-Smith, M. (2015). Effect of registered partnership on labor earnings and fertility for same-sex couples: Evidence from Swedish register data. Demography, 52, 1243–1268.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alm, J., & Whittington, L. A. (1999). For love or money? The impact of income taxes on marriage. Economica, 66, 297–316.

Andersson, G., Noack, T., Sierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.

Associated Press. (2008, July 31). Massachusetts Gov. Patrick signs bill allowing gay marriage by non-residents. Fox News . Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/story/massachusetts-gov-patrick-signs-bill-allowing-gay-marriage-by-non-residents

Badgett, M. V. L. (2009). When gay people get married: What happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York: NYU Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Badgett, M. V. L. (2010). The economic value of marriage for same-sex couples. Drake Law Review, 58, 1081–1116.

Badgett, M. V. L. (2011). Social inclusion and the value of marriage equality in Massachusetts and the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 316–334.

Badgett, M. V. L., & Herman, J. L. (2011). Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States. In A. K. Baumle (Ed.), International handbook on the demography of sexuality (pp. 331–362). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813–846.

Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage, Part II. Journal of Political Economy, 82, S11–S26.

Belluck, P. (2004a, April 25). Romney won’t let gay outsiders wed in Massachusetts. The New York Times , p. 1A.

Belluck, P. (2004b, May 14). Gays elsewhere eye marriage Massachusetts style. The New York Times , p. 16A.

Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography, 37, 139–154.

Blank, R. M., Charles, K. K., & Sallee, J. M. (2009). A cautionary tale about the use of administrative data: Evidence on age of marriage laws. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1 (2), 128–149.

Boertien, D., & Vignoli, D. (2019). Legalizing same-sex marriage matters for the subjective well-being of individuals in same-sex unions. Demography, 56, 2109–2121.

Bonauto, M. L. (2005). Goodridge in context. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 40, 1–69.

Buchmueller, T. C., & Carpenter, C. S. (2012). The effect of requiring private employers to extend health benefit eligibility to same-sex partners of employees: Evidence from California. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 31, 388–403.

Buckles, K., Guldi, M., & Price, J. (2011). Changing the price of marriage: Evidence from blood test requirements. Journal of Human Resources, 46, 539–567.

Carpenter, C., & Gates, G. J. (2008). Gay and lesbian partnership: New evidence from California. Demography, 45, 573–590.

Carpenter, C. S. (2005). Self-reported sexual orientation and earnings: Evidence from California. ILR Review, 58, 258–273.

Carpenter, C. S., Eppink, S. T., Gonzales, G., & McKay, T. (2019). Effects of access to legal same-sex marriage on marriage and health: Evidence from BRFSS (NBER Working Paper No. 24651). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.

Cooperman, A., & Finer, J. (2004, May 18). Gay couples marry in Massachusetts: Hundreds tie knot on day one, but questions remain. Washington Post , p. A1.

Dee, T. S. (2008). Forsaking all others? The effects of ‘gay marriage’ on risky sex. Economic Journal, 118, 1055–1078.

Dillender, M. (2014). The death of marriage? The effects of new forms of legal recognition on marriage rates in the United States. Demography, 51, 563–585.

Dutton, S., De Pinto, J., Salvanto, A., & Backus, F. (2013). Poll: 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage (CBS News poll analysis). Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-53-of-americans-support-same-sex-marriage/

Francis, A. M., Mialon, H. M., & Peng, H. (2012) In sickness and in health: Same-sex marriage laws and sexually transmitted infections. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 1329–1341.

Friedberg, L. (1998). Did unilateral divorce raise divorce rates? Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 88, 608–627.

Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2007). Guess who’s been coming to dinner? Trends in interracial marriage over the 20th century. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 (2), 71–90.

Gates, G. J., Badgett, M. V. L., & Ho, D. (2008). Marriage, registration, and dissolution by same-sex couples in the United States (Williams Institute report). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5tg8147x

Gates, G. J., & Steinberger, M. D (2010). Same-sex unmarried partner couples in the American Community Survey: The role of misreporting, miscoding and misallocation (Working paper). Retrieved from http://economics-files.pomona.edu/steinberger/research/Gates_Steinberger_ACS_Miscode_May2010.pdf

Gevrek, D. (2014). Interracial marriage, migration and loving. Review of Black Political Economy, 41, 25–60.

Gonzales, G. (2015). Association of the New York State Marriage Equality Act with changes in health insurance coverage. JAMA, 314, 727–728.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003). Retrieved from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/440mass309.html

Hansen, M. E., Martell, M. E., & Roncolato, L. (2020). A labor of love: The impact of same-sex marriage on labor supply. Review of Economics of the Household, 18, 265–283.

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., O’Cleirigh, C., Grasso, C., Mayer, K., Safren, S., & Bradford, J. (2012). Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 285–291.

Herek, G. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19–22.

Ihrke, D. K., & Farber, C. S. (2012). Geographical mobility: 2005 to 2010 (Current Population Reports, No. P20-567). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Jepsen, C., & Jepsen, L. K. (2015). Labor market specialization within same-sex and different-sex couples. Industrial Relations, 54, 109–130.

Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39, 435–453.

Kolk, M., & Andersson, G. (2020). Two decades of same-sex marriage in Sweden: A demographic account of developments in marriage, childbearing, and divorce. Demography, 57, 147–169.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J., H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., & Stykes, J. B. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex cohabiting couple relationship stability. Demography, 53, 937–953.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. (2013). MA BRFSS methodology (Technical report). Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/behavioral-risk/methodology.pdf

McCarthy, J. (2019, May 22). U.S. support for gay marriage stable, at 63%. Gallup News . Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/257705/support-gay-marriage-stable.aspx

Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Parker, K. (2015). Among LGBT Americans, bisexuals stand out when it comes to identity, acceptance (Pew Research Center Fact Tank report). Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/20/among-lgbt-americans-bisexuals-stand-out-when-it-comes-to-identity-acceptance/

Peters, H. E. (1986). Marriage and divorce: Informational constraints and private contracting. American Economic Review, 76, 437–454.

Pew Research Center. (2012). More support for gun rights, gay marriage than in 2008 or 2004 (U.S. Politics & Policy report). Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/25/more-support-for-gun-rights-gay-marriage-than-in-2008-or-2004/?src=prc-headline

Pew Research Center. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: Changed minds and changing demographics (U.S. Politics & Policy report). Retrieved from https://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/

Raifman, J., Moscoe, E., Austin, S. B., & McConnell, M. (2017) Difference-in-differences analysis of the association between state same-sex marriage policies and adolescent suicide attempts. JAMA Pediatrics, 171, 350–356.

Ramos, C., Goldberg, N. G., & Badgett, M. V. L. (2009). The effects of marriage equality in Massachusetts: A survey of the experiences and impact of marriage on same-sex couples (Williams Institute report). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9dx6v3kj

Rauch, J. (2004). Gay marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America . New York, NY: Times Books.

Sansone, D. (2019). Pink work: Same-sex marriage, employment, and discrimination. Journal of Public Economics, 180, 104086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104086

Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 (2), 27–52.

Trandafir, M. (2014). The effect of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands. Demography, 51, 317–340.

Trandafir, M. (2015). Legal recognition of same-sex couples and family formation. Demography, 52, 113–151.

United States v. Windsor. 570 U.S. 744 (2013). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Wolfers, J. (2006). Did unilateral divorce laws raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results. American Economic Review, 96, 1802–1820.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Lee Badgett, Marianne Bitler, Patrick Button, Jeff Frank, Gilbert Gonzales, Helen Hawk, Bill Jesdale, Marieka Klawitter, Stewart Landers, Trevon Logan, Hai Nguyen, Liz Peters, Manisha Shah, Mark Stehr, and seminar participants at the U.S. Census Bureau, Johns Hopkins University, The Ohio State University, UC Santa Barbara, University of California Irvine, University of Illinois-Chicago, University of New Hampshire, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt, and the 2012 APPAM meetings for very useful comments and discussions. The data used in this paper are protected by a confidentiality agreement; researchers interested in the data can contact the author for information on how to obtain access. I thank Helen Hawk, Maria McKenna, and Liane Tinsley for help with the Massachusetts BRFSS data. The contents of this paper do not reflect the views of the Massachusetts Department of Health or any other organization. All errors and omissions are my own.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University, 2301 Vanderbilt Place PMB 351819, Nashville, TN, 37235-1819, USA

Christopher S. Carpenter

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher S. Carpenter .

Ethics declarations

Ethics and consent.

The author confirms that guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) were followed for this study.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 361 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Carpenter, C.S. The Direct Effects of Legal Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: Evidence From Massachusetts. Demography 57 , 1787–1808 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00908-1

Download citation

Published : 08 September 2020

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00908-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Same-sex marriage
• Marriage take-up
• Union formation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex  marriage

PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University

Disclosure statement

Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

James Cook University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.

Further reading: Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

A review of the research examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;

hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and

generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

mood disorders (36% higher);

psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and

anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Further reading: Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

• Human rights
• Same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage plebiscite

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 181,400 academics and researchers from 4,928 institutions.

Register now

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

Search life-sciences literature (43,882,693 articles, preprints and more)

• Available from publisher site using DOI. A subscription may be required. Full text
• Citations & impact
• Similar Articles

Same-sex marriage: a new social phenomenon.

Population and Development Review , 01 Jan 2011 , 37(3): 529-551 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00433.x   PMID: 22167814 

Abstract 

Full text links .

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00433.x

References 

Articles referenced by this article (97)

Title not supplied

AUTHOR UNKNOWN

Agence France Presse 2009a “Japan allows its citizens same-sex marriage abroad,” http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imtwjW1jvMoCTXZaahFbK3ClE9ZA

Agence france presse 2009b “britain: apology to gay mathematician,” new york times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/world/europe/11briefs-turingbrf.htmlref=world, agren , david 2010 “mexican states ordered to honor gay marriages,” new york times, allvoices 2009 “gay marriage statistics,” http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/2430684-gay-marriage-statistics, appleton , roy 2009 “dallas judge paves way for gay couple to get divorce,” the dallas morning news http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/100109dnmetgaymarriage.1d5a0d50d.html, associated press 2009 “sudan: women who wore pants are flogged in public,” new york times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/world/africa/14briefs-sudan.html, baklinski , thaddeus m. 2008 “netherlands recognizes polygamous marriages of muslims reports dutch newspaper,” lifesitenews.com http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081404.html, citations & impact , impact metrics, citations of article over time, alternative metrics.

Smart citations by scite.ai Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by EuropePMC if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles. Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed. https://scite.ai/reports/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00433.x

Article citations, bridewealth marriage in the 21 st century: a case study from rural mozambique..

Chae S , Agadjanian V , Hayford SR

J Marriage Fam , 83(2):409-427, 14 Sep 2020

Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 33776142 | PMCID: PMC7990346

Free full text in Europe PMC

Two Decades of Same-Sex Marriage in Sweden: A Demographic Account of Developments in Marriage, Childbearing, and Divorce.

Kolk M , Andersson G

Demography , 57(1):147-169, 01 Feb 2020

Cited by: 6 articles | PMID: 31919806 | PMCID: PMC7052034

Effect of Registered Partnership on Labor Earnings and Fertility for Same-Sex Couples: Evidence From Swedish Register Data.

Aldén L , Edlund L , Hammarstedt M , Mueller-Smith M

Demography , 52(4):1243-1268, 01 Aug 2015

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 26126882

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

New voters, new outlook? Predispositions, social networks, and the changing politics of gay civil rights.

Becker AB , Scheufele DA

Soc Sci Q , 92(2):324-345, 01 Jan 2011

Cited by: 5 articles | PMID: 21919271

Decomposing trends in attitudes toward gay marriage, 1988–2006.

Soc Sci Q , 92(2):346-363, 01 Jan 2011

Cited by: 16 articles | PMID: 21919270

Direct democracy and minority rights: same-sex marriage bans in the U.S.

Soc Sci Q , 92(2):364-383, 01 Jan 2011

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 21919272

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective.

Am Psychol , 61(6):607-621, 01 Sep 2006

Cited by: 73 articles | PMID: 16953748

What same sex civil partnerships may mean for health.

King M , Bartlett A

J Epidemiol Community Health , 60(3):188-191, 01 Mar 2006

Cited by: 20 articles | PMID: 16476745 | PMCID: PMC2465551

Review Free full text in Europe PMC

Europe PMC is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Human rights abuses are happening right now – start a monthly gift today.

• Videos & Photos
• Take Action

Thailand: Promptly Pass Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Groundbreaking Legislation Would Secure Equal Rights for LGBT People

Share this via Facebook Share this via X Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer

(Bangkok) – The Thai parliament’s upper house should promptly pass a same-sex marriage bill that the lower house approved by an overwhelming majority on March 27, 2024, Human Rights Watch said today. Thailand would become the first country in Southeast Asia, and the second in Asia, to recognize same-sex relationships.  

Thailand’s House of Representatives passed the Marriage Equality Act with the approval of 400 of the 415 members present. Ten voted against the bill, two abstained, and three did not vote.

“Thailand is poised to send an important message to the rest of Asia by recognizing same-sex relationships,” said Kyle Knight , interim co-director of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights program at Human Rights Watch. “Lawmakers should not delay this important occasion, which could create momentum across the region to respect the fundamental rights of LGBT people.”

The rights to marry and to form a family are fundamental rights recognized in article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand has ratified. Various international human rights bodies, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have rejected the idea that a “family,” as understood under international human rights law, must conform to any single model.

Thailand’s Marriage Equality Act makes important amendments to the civil and commercial code language concerning spouses, in particular by changing “men and women” and “husband and wife” to “individuals” and “marriage partners.” However, LGBT rights advocates have raised concerns that it leaves in place “mother” and “father,” rather than replacing those terms with the more gender-neutral “parent,” which could cause complications for same-sex couples attempting to adopt and raise children.

Thirty-seven countries currently recognize same-sex marriage in their national laws. Taiwan became the first country in Asia to recognize same-sex marriage in 2019 . Nepal has recognized some same-sex marriages in 2023 and 2024 under an interim order from the Supreme Court while a final judgment is forthcoming.

Passing same-sex marriage legislation is an opportunity for Thailand to match its positive global reputation on LGBT rights with tangible legal protections, Human Rights Watch said. For decades, Thailand has been a destination for LGBT tourists, and in particular for transgender people seeking gender-affirming health care. Thailand still offers no protections for transgender people , and lawmakers should also seriously consider passing much-needed reforms for trans rights as well.

“Social acceptance has its limitations and is no substitute for protections grounded in law,” Knight said. “Thailand is on the brink of offering more legal protections for LGBT people than it ever has in its history, and setting a positive example for the region.”

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

• LGBT Rights

More Reading

Letter to prime minister srettha thavisin, thailand: submission to the un committee on the elimination of discrimination against women, “people can’t be fit into boxes”.

Thailand’s Need for Legal Gender Recognition

Most Viewed

A dirty investment.

Kazakhstan Woman’s Death a National Tragedy

Gaza: Israeli Strike Killing 106 Civilians an Apparent War Crime

Russia: Shameful Pride in Torture of Terrorism Suspects

Ethiopia: Military Executes Dozens in Amhara Region

Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice

Get updates on human rights issues from around the globe. Join our movement today.

Every weekday, get the world’s top human rights news, explored and explained by Andrew Stroehlein.

• Print Replica
• Election 2024
• Russia Attacks Ukraine
• Red Hill Water Crisis
• Crime in Hawaii
• America in Turmoil
• Traffic Map
• Photo Galleries
• Homeless in Hawaii
• Volcanic Ash
• Latest Sports News
• TV & Radio
• Sports Blogs
• Hawaii Prep World
• Hawaii Warrior World
• Letters to the Editor
• Submit a Letter to the Editor
• Arts & Entertainment
• State Legals
• Political Cartoons
• Classifieds
• Star Channels
• Hawaii Renovation
• Email Newsletters
• Corrections
• Special Sections
• Partner Content
• Partner Videos
• Web Push Notifications
• Mobile Apps
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service
• Activate Digital Account
• Forgot Password
• Customer Service

• Saturday, April 6, 2024
• Today's Paper

Hawaii News

Lgbtq+ support push for same-sex marriage bill.

• By Victoria Budiono [email protected]
• April 3, 2024

CRAIG T. KOJIMA/[email protected]

“I don’t think there’s ever been a social movement where there’s been such a dramatic change in public opinion in such a short period of time.”

Retired associate judge, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

House Bill 2802, which calls for a state constitutional amendment to repeal the Legislature’s authority to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, remains alive as advocates worry about a conservative-­leaning U.S. Supreme Court possibly overturning same-sex marriages across the country. Read more

Mahalo for reading the Honolulu Star-Advertiser!

You're reading a premium story. Read the full story with our Print & Digital Subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now to continue reading this story.

Print subscriber but without online access? Activate your Digital Account now.

House Bill 2802, which calls for a state constitutional amendment to repeal the Legislature’s authority to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, remains alive as advocates worry about a conservative-­leaning U.S. Supreme Court possibly overturning same-sex marriages across the country.

In addition, a sense of urgency surrounds the bill ahead of November’s rematch between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, who appointed three sitting Supreme Court justices.

HB 2802 crossed over to the Senate, moved out of the Senate Judiciary committee and has been referred to the Senate Ways and Means committee for a hearing on Thursday.

Article 1 Section 23 of the state Constitution was amended by voters in November 1998 to read that “The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples” after 69% of voters approved of the change before same-sex marriages later became legal in Hawaii in 2013.

The change in attitudes against and then in support of same-sex marriages in Hawaii and across the country represents the largest shift in public opinion on any social issue, said Dan Foley, who retired from Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals and advocated for same-sex marriage in Hawaii.

Foley presided over one of Hawaii’s earliest same-sex marriages and continues to push to repeal the Legislature’s ability to roll back same-sex marriage.

“It’s time,” Foley told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Monday.

HB 2802 represents the Legislature’s opportunity to put the issue to voters on the Nov. 5 ballot once again, or see the window of opportunity close for another two years when the political landscape could change, starting with November’s local and national elections.

Foley has said that opposition to same-sex marriages in Hawaii and across the country was running around 70% and then flipped to about 70% support after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in 2015 as more children came out to their parents and attitudes abruptly changed.

“I don’t think there’s ever been a social movement where there’s been such a dramatic change in public opinion in such a short period of time,” he said.

The latest version of HB 2802 would call for a general election ballot question on Nov. 5 asking Hawaii voters, “Shall the state constitution be amended to repeal the Legislature’s authority to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?”

Jeffrey Hong, chair of the Change 23 Coalition, said it’s important to push HB 2802 during an election year because any constituional amendments must be voted on by the public and must be approved by more than half of all votes cast in order to pass.

Foley called the current power of the Legislature to repeal same-sex marriages in Hawaii “a real blight on our Bill of Rights. It’s time to remove it.”

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii for 10 years after former Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed Senate Bill 1 into law on Nov. 13, 2013, which became known as the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act.

House Speaker Scott Saiki previously told the Star-­Advertiser that he introduced HB 2802 this session because he worries the U.S. Supreme Court could undermine same-sex marriages following its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that gives states the ability to limit abortion rights, which continues to play out in some parts of the country.

U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda, in written testimony supporting HB 2802, said she was “on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court when news broke that the Court intended to reverse precedent that had stood for nearly half a century and eliminate a woman’s constitutional right to reproductive freedoms.”

On same-sex marriage, Tokuda said she refuses to watch the U.S. Supreme Court take a “hatchet to rights won that had previously been denied.”

She strongly supports the bill as someone who “fought to establish and protect marriage equality in Hawaii for more than a quarter of a century.”

Tokuda described the passage of the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act as one of the defining moments of her tenure in the state Senate.

Hong wrote in supportive testimony that he rushed a wedding with his partner of 10 years, Jason Alcock, on the first day of the Act’s commencement on Dec. 2, 2013.

“It is a measure of success that after 10 plus years of marriages, Gen Z is unaware marriage equality issues exist,” Hong wrote.

Hong told the Star-Advertiser that the state Constitution’s framework that allows for discrimination against same-sex marriage is a time bomb, and legislators need to prevent discrimination against minorities such as the LGBTQ+ community by putting the issue before voters in November.

“The genesis of this is that when the Dobbs decision came down, it was apparent that the civil rights we may have taken for granted over 50 years on the right to choose are now in jeopardy,” he said.

Hong said legislators need to leave it up to voters to remove the “poisonous language” in the Constitution in November.

If legislators kill HB 2802 this session, Hong said, “we will come back next year, and we will keep on coming back.”

On the Move: Nicolas Rodier and Norman Chan

On the move: calvin matsushima.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Lawmakers in Thailand overwhelmingly approve a bill to legalize same-sex marriage

Lawmakers in Thailand’s lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly approved a marriage equality bill on Wednesday, Mar. 27 that would make the country the first in Southeast Asia to legalize equal rights for marriage partners of any gender.

FILE - Participants hold a rainbow flag during a Pride Parade in Bangkok, Thailand, on June 4, 2023. Lawmakers in Thailand’s lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly approved a marriage equality bill on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, that would make the country the first in Southeast Asia to legalize equal rights for marriage partners of any gender. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit, File)

• Copy Link copied

FILE - Women kiss while holding a poster to support marriage equality, during a Pride Parade in Bangkok, Thailand, on June 4, 2023. Lawmakers in Thailand’s lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly approved a marriage equality bill on Wednesday March 26, 2024, that would make the country the first in Southeast Asia to legalize equal rights for marriage partners of any gender. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit, File)

BANGKOK (AP) — Lawmakers in Thailand’s lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly approved a marriage equality bill on Wednesday that would make the country the first in Southeast Asia to legalize equal rights for marriage partners of any gender.

The bill passed its final reading with the approval of 400 of the 415 members of the House of Representatives in attendance, with 10 voting against it, two abstaining and three not voting.

Thailand has a reputation for acceptance and inclusivity but has struggled for decades to pass a marriage equality law. Thai society largely holds conservative values, and members of the LGBTQ+ community say they face discrimination in everyday life. The government and state agencies are also historically conservative, and advocates for gender equality have had a hard time pushing lawmakers and civil servants to accept change.

The bill now goes to the Senate, which rarely rejects any legislation that passes the lower house, and then to the king for royal endorsement. This would make Thailand the first country or region in Southeast Asia to pass such a law and the third in Asia, after Taiwan and Nepal.

The bill amends the Civil and Commercial Code to change the words “men and women” and “husband and wife” to “individuals” and “marriage partners.” It would open up access to full legal, financial and medical rights for LGBTQ+ couples.

Danuphorn Punnakanta, a spokesperson of the governing Pheu Thai party and president of a committee overseeing the marriage equality bill, said in Parliament that the amendment is for “everyone in Thailand” regardless of their gender, and would not deprive heterosexual couples of any rights.

“For this law, we would like to return rights to the (LGBTQ+ group). We are not giving them rights. These are the fundamental rights that this group of people … has lost,” he said.

Mookdapa Yangyuenpradorn of the human rights organization Fortify Rights called the approval of the bill a historic moment for Thailand and the LGBTQ+ community.

She noted, however, that lawmakers did not approve the inclusion of the word “parent” in addition to “father and mother” in the law, which activists said would limit the parental rights of LGBTQ+ couples.

The new government led by Pheu Thai, which took office last year, has made marriage equality one of its main goals.

Thai LGBT activists celebrate vote that brings marriage equality closer

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Additional reporting by Chayut Setboonsarng; Editing by Clarence Fernandez

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Tajikistan's foreign ministry on Saturday rejected a claim by a top Russian security official that Ukraine's embassy in the Tajik capital was recruiting mercenaries to fight against Russia.

Explainer: Why did Ecuador raid Mexico's Quito embassy?

Mexico abruptly suspended bilateral relations with Ecuador in an escalating diplomatic dispute, after Ecuador's police forced their way into Mexico's Quito embassy to arrest a former vice president on graft charges.

Israel launched air strikes on the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon early on Sunday, two Lebanese security sources told Reuters, a few hours after armed group Hezbollah said it had downed an Israeli drone over Lebanon.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

The Christian Post

To enjoy our website, you'll need to enable JavaScript in your web browser. Please click here to learn how.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Recommended

Russian Orthodox Church leader declares Ukraine invasion a ‘holy war'

Baylor University's 'Harry Potter' professor goes viral after blasting JK Rowling for 'hatred of trans people'

The North Face supports LGBT overnight camp for 12 year olds where children perform in drag

Fugitive Florida pastor arrested in Texas after fleeing sexual battery, molestation charges

Is judging others always wrong?

A victory for religious freedom in Virginia

Making Christianity more invisible: Biden and transgenderism

Biden failing (and people know) on immigration, border security

What does it mean to be created in God’s Image?

Our delicate dance with Donald Trump

Pope francis claims pope benedict xvi defended him over same-sex civil unions stance: report.

Pope Francis has reportedly claimed in a new book that his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, defended Francis' support for legal civil union protections for same-sex couples to prelates.

Excerpts of the pontiff's new book, The Successor: My Memories of Benedict XVI , which is slated for publication in Spanish on Wednesday, maintain that Benedict XVI defended Francis on the issue in front of an undisclosed group of cardinals, according to Reuters .

"They showed up at his home to practically put me on trial and they accused me in front of him of backing same-sex marriage," Francis said.

Get Our Latest News for FREE

The former pope reportedly helped the cardinals to "distinguish" Francis' views on the issue, explaining to them that his position was "no heresy," according to Francis' recollection in the book.

Pope Francis, who endorsed civil unions for homosexual couples while serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires, became the first pontiff to do so in 2020.

"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis asserted during an interview for the film "Francesco."

"Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it," he added. "What we have to create is a civil union law; that way, they are legally covered." 

The Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith sent shockwaves through the Roman Catholic Church last December when it issued "Fiducia Supplicans," which permits priests to bless "couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church's perennial teaching on marriage."

After the guidance drew opposition from Catholic bishops, mainly in Africa and Eastern Europe, the Vatican subsequently released five pages of clarification to the guidance.

The Vatican insisted that "the document is clear and definitive about marriage and sexuality," adding that the "non-ritualized form of blessing" authorized by the declaration "does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable" but instead amounts to a "response of a pastor towards two persons who ask for God's help."

Other Catholic prelates pushed back against any claim that Benedict would have supported the guidance.

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller of Germany claimed during an event marking the first anniversary of Benedict's death last December that the declaration "never would have happened [under Benedict] because it was so ambiguous," according to Reuters .

Mueller, who served as the head of the Vatican's doctrinal office before Francis removed him in 2013, denied the metaphysical existence of marriage between two members of the same sex.

"There is no homosexual matrimony," he said. "It does not exist, it cannot exist, despite ideologies we have [today]," he said.

In 2003, Benedict XVI — who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and prefect of the Vatican's doctrinal office — signed off on a document asserting that compassion for homosexuals in the Church "cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions."

Other portions of Francis' new book detail the political maneuvering behind the 2005 papal conclave that led to Benedict's election following the death of Pope John Paul II, according to The Associated Press .

Francis, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, claims some of his fellow cardinals "used" him to siphon votes away from then-Cardinal Ratzinger during the 2005 conclave.

"They told me afterward that they didn't want a 'foreign' pope,'" said Francis, who ultimately supported Benedict's election.

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post. Send news tips to  [email protected]

Was this article helpful?

Help keep The Christian Post free for everyone.

By making a recurring donation or a one-time donation of any amount, you're helping to keep CP's articles free and accessible for everyone.

We’re sorry to hear that.

Hope you’ll give us another try and check out some other articles. Return to homepage.

'A step forward' or 'contradictory'? Catholic reactions to approval of blessings for LGBT couples

Cardinal behind vatican's same-sex blessing expresses regret for writing erotic story about jesus, teenage girl, catholic group urges pope to dismiss cardinal who wrote erotic story about jesus, pope defends vatican guidance on same-sex couples: bless 'the people,' 'not the union', most popular.

North Carolina church fires pastor over admitted sexual misconduct: 'Lord brought judgment'

For King & Country singer didn't want 'Unsung Hero' film to be 'glory project' about his family

Indiana abortion ban violates religious freedom rights, court rules

More articles.

Florida man arrested for allegedly smacking Walgreens manager in face with Bible on Easter

Group of Brands