Abstract
The current study used an online survey to explore the anticipated impact of legalized marriage on partners in same-sex couples living in California. These data were gathered prior to the California Supreme Court decision in May 2008 legalizing same-sex marriage, which held sway for 5 months before California Proposition 8 eliminating same-sex marriage was passed by a voter referendum. In addition to administering three quantitative measures (Gay and Lesbian Acceptance & Social Support Index, Anticipated Impact of Marriage Scale, and The Couple Satisfaction Index), a qualitative approach to inquiry was used to derive themes in the reported experiences of the study participants. The principal theme emerging from participants’ responses involved a ubiquitous sense of security in all areas of their life, including increased permanence in their couple relationship as well as feeling protected as a unit by the larger society.
Research consistently suggests that marriage can serve as a protective factor in that people who are married demonstrate superior levels of mental health compared with unmarried individuals (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Dush & Amato, 2005; Mathy, Kerr, & Lehmann, 2003; Mathy & Lehmann, 2004). Married people report fewer symptoms of depression and substance abuse (Brown, 2000; Horwitz, White, & Howell-White, 1996; Marcussen, 2005). Additionally, as the level of commitment increases in a relationship, the amount of well-being increases (Dush & Amato, 2005). Dush and Amato found exponentially greater levels of well-being among people with increasingly higher levels of commitment in their romantic relationship (not dating, dating multiple people, monogamous dating, cohabitating, and married). Correspondingly, those who were married reported the highest level of well-being.
Marcussen’s (2005) study of the differences in depression and alcohol use between married and cohabiting couples showed that heterosexual, married individuals exhibit lower levels of both measures of distress. The differences in depression were largely accounted for by other covarying factors, including coping resources. In other words, factors such as perceived partner support and relationship stability may account for a larger part of this difference between married and cohabitating couples than does marital status per se. Some researchers have posited that these profound mental health differences exist at least in part because of the desirable societal value placed on marriage as well as the expectations of, and support for, commitment and stability in the marital relationship (Brown, 2000; Lannutti, 2008; Marcussen, 2005).
It is crucial to point out, however, that research has also demonstrated a difference in benefits across gender (in heterosexual couples). Earlier studies found that marriage was psychologically beneficial for men but psychologically detrimental for women (Chafetz, 1990; Lengermann & Niebrugge-Brantley, 1990), which has been explained in part because marriage has traditionally led to a loss of freedom and autonomy for women in order for them to stay at home with children. In addition, women have typically been primarily responsible for other domestic responsibilities, such as housework, which has remained largely the case despite the fact that women have become increasingly active in the workforce (Dempsey, 2002). However, more recent research is challenging this previous gender difference, finding that men and women experience equal emotional benefits as a result of marriage (Simon, 2002; Waite & Gallagher, 2001).
Again, most of this research on the benefits of marriage has been conducted on heterosexual couples. Now, researchers are beginning to suggest that the benefits of marital status may apply to same-sex couples as well (Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008; Mathy & Lehmann, 2004; Wienke & Hill, 2009). Wienke and Hill (2009) found that same-sex couples who identified themselves as “married” (either legally or otherwise) or “cohabitating” indicated higher levels of happiness than those who were single. Given that the majority of U.S. same-sex couples do not have access to legally recognized unions, let alone legal marriage, it is difficult to discern whether this advantage is related to being in a cohabitating, committed couple relationship or to self-described “marriage” per se. Nonetheless, in their study comparing same-sex couples in civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions in Vermont, and married heterosexual couples, Balsam et al. (2008) found that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationship over time than either same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This finding points to the possibility that having some legal legitimization of one’s union gives a couple an advantage, at least with respect to the stability of the relationship. On the other hand, it may be that more stable, higher functioning couples are more likely to form lasting civil unions.
Although there is extensive research indicating that there are significant benefits of marriage for individuals in different-sex relationships, much less research has been done with same-sex couples. The burgeoning legal reality of same-sex marriage is beginning to open up the field to include the study of marriage among same-sex couples (Lannutti, 2005, 2007, 2008; Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2008) as well as the study of the impact of the political discourse surrounding same-sex marriage on people in same-sex relationships (Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, and Miller, 2009; Shulman, Weck, Schwing, Smith, & Coale, 2009).
Context of the Study
This article is being written during what can only be characterized as a revolutionary era for same-sex marriage in the United States. Same-sex couples have moved from “outlaw” status (wherein homosexuality constituted illegal “sodomy” in some states prior to the Lawrence v. Texas U.S Supreme Court decision of 2003) to “in-law” status (with the advent of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 and in other New England states since 2004; Green, in press). Moreover, the status of marriage for same-sex couples is in flux in many states, perhaps most notably in California where the right to marry was extended to same-sex couples by a state Supreme Court ruling in May 2008. This ruling, however, was overturned by the now-infamous California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to prohibit marriage equality in November 2008. In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, maintaining the future exclusion of same-sex couples from the state’s institution of marriage, although the marriages of same-sex couples who had gotten married between June 17, 2008, and the November 2008 election will continue to be recognized as legal marriages in California.
Developments in same-sex marriage are also occurring elsewhere. Indeed, in just the past several months, the number of states that have extended marriage to same-sex couples went from one to five, now including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia. That number may increase or decrease by the time this article is in print. Some of these marriage laws are facing court challenges and referenda to repeal them.
Instead of marriage, some states offer other legal options for same-sex couples. A handful of states (currently California, New Jersey, Oregon, Nevada, Maine, Wisconsin, and Washington) provide same-sex couples with access to varying levels of state-level benefits and responsibilities of marriage through either civil union or domestic partnership statutes. New York and Maryland will not perform marriages for same-sex couples but will legally recognize marriages entered into elsewhere.
It is important to note that, at this time, all forms of legalized relationships for same-sex couples are available only in some states and are not recognized by the U.S. government, so there is no access for same-sex couples to inheritance, tax, retirement, social security, and many other benefits provided to married heterosexual couples through the federal government (Cahill, Ellen, & Tobias, 2002; Human Rights Campaign, n.d.). Even at the state level, significant legal differences can exist between marriage and the alternative legal unions. One notable exception is the domestic partnership option in California. In 2005, couples in domestic partnerships in California were granted the same statewide legal rights as legally married couples, thereby creating a separate and supposedly equal legal status for same-sex couples. As of this writing, the state of Washington also has made domestic partnerships equivalent to marriage in terms of legal rights and obligations, and the same holds true for civil unions in New Jersey.
There have been attempts to compare couples with different types of legal recognition (Balsam et al., 2008; Rothblum et al., 2008). As noted above, Balsam et al. (2008) found that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely at a 3-year follow-up to have ended their relationship than either same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. Rothblum et al. (2008) compared individuals in same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, domestic partnerships in California, and marriages in Massachusetts. Couples were compared on length of relationship, outness, conflict, social support, closeness with family of origin, experiences of discrimination, leisure activities, thoughts about ending the relationship, and political participation. Interestingly, the researchers found very few differences in relationship qualities among the participants with different types of legalized relationships.
Just after the legalization of marriage in Massachusetts, Lannutti (2007) asked same-sex couples there how legalizing same-sex marriage might change their own romantic relationship(s) as well as how it might change the way they view romantic relationships. Participants described marriage rendering their existing relationship more real, in that others would more readily recognize them as a legitimate couple. Furthermore, they themselves felt they were already beginning (with the legalization) to view their relationship as more real, serious, and concrete.
In the past 2 years or so, California has been the epicenter for much of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage. In granting the same legal standing to domestic partnerships, California became an excellent case of an environment in which same-sex couples have access to the same state-level legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities as those available to married, different-sex couples in the state. It also became, then, an apt place within which to explore whether, indeed, separate is experienced as equal. Although New Jersey has civil unions that are legally equivalent to their state’s marriages (since 2006) and, now, Washington also offers domestic partnerships with the same rights as their marriage, it was decided to only use couples registered in California in order to limit potential demographic confounds.
This study explored the anticipated impact of marriage among Californian same-sex couples. At the time of data collection, these couples were awaiting the California Supreme Court ruling that, if passed, would grant access to state marriage to same-sex couples. This ruling did, indeed, come to pass in May 2008. Given that California’s same-sex couples already had access to domestic partnerships that granted the same statewide legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges as marriage, the anticipated impact of legalizing marriage would presumably be mostly in the social and psychological realms rather than in legal/financial ones. Thus, the present study investigated same-sex domestic partners’ perceptions of the socioemotional as well as more general anticipated benefits of marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. As a primarily qualitative investigation, no hypotheses were made. Instead, this exploratory study attempted to uncover new knowledge about the participants’ experiences. The primary (qualitative) research question that was explored focused on participants’ anticipated experience of the impact of marriage on their lives.
Method
Participants
A total of 696 individual adults in same-sex relationships participated in the study, 686 (99%) of whom reported currently residing in California (the 1% who reported residing elsewhere were not included in the analyses). Participants of this study had to be at least 18 years old and currently involved in a committed same-sex relationship for at least 1 year. Although having a domestic partnership was not a requirement to participate in the study, the recruitment procedure (see “Procedure” section) was targeted toward people in domestic partnerships. Participant ages ranged from 19 to 79 years (M = 43.36, SD = 11.79). The length of time that participants reported being in their same-sex relationships ranged from 1 to 52 years (M = 11.97, SD = 9.05).
Because the goal was to ascertain various expectations of statewide legal marriage among people in same-sex relationships, the small minority (6%) of the participants who reported already having attained legal marriage in places where it was legal at the time (and the 11 participants who did not identify whether or not they had attained legal marital status) were excluded from the analyses. Nearly all the remaining participants had a legal relational status other than marriage and 99% reported having a domestic partnership. To keep the data clean, those participants who did not report having a domestic partnership were excluded from the analyses. Of the remaining 628 participants (whose data were included in the analyses reported below), 1% also had a U.S.-based civil union. Some reported having obtained legal statuses outside of the United States—three (0.5%) domestic partnerships and one (0.2%) civil union. The percentages total greater than 100 because some participants had obtained more than one legal union with their partner.
Fifty-four percent (n = 336) of the sample identified as male (including three female-to-male transgender individuals) and 46% (n = 292) identified as female (including two male-to-female transgender individuals). Among the participants, 10% (n = 65) reported being Hispanic, Latino/Latina, or Spanish. Of these, 26 reported being Mexican or Mexican American, 11 Puerto Rican, 3 Cuban, and 25 other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino/Latina. Eighty percent (n = 502) of the participants were White or European American, 2.2% (n = 14) Black or African American, 2% (n = 12) American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4.6% (n = 29) Asian American or Pacific Islander (0.5% Asian Indian, 0.3% Japanese, 0.5% Native Hawaiian, 1.2% Chinese, 0.3% Korean, 1.7% Filipino), 2.9% (n = 18) Mixed race, and 8.6% (n = 54) Other. The numbers total more than 100% as participants were able to check more than one applicable category. Because the demographic data on individuals who have registered domestic partnerships in California is not publicly available, it is unknown whether the gender and race/ethnicity of this study’s participants accurately represent the overall California population of people who have registered partnerships.
Procedure
Participants were recruited by sending letters to 8,700 people listed in the California public directory of registered domestic partners. A total of 696 of those individuals recruited to participate in the study responded, resulting in an 8% response rate. Care was taken to send the letter to only one person in each registered couple and only to those who were registered on or after January 1, 2005 (the date when California domestic partnerships became legally equivalent to California marriages). In the mailing, potential participants were told that the purpose of the study was to explore participants’ attitudes and experiences related to same-sex marriage and were invited to go to the study’s website to complete a confidential online survey.
Data collection began roughly a month before the California Supreme Court ruled on the legality of same-sex marriage. Only data that came in before the Court’s decision are included in this study, as the goal was to ascertain participants’ expectations of the impact of marriage equality. Thus, at the time they completed the survey, none of the participants in the present study knew whether same-sex marriage was going to be legalized by the Supreme Court in California, nor was there any anticipation of Proposition 8’s development, course, and final outcome. All questionnaires were completed and submitted via the Internet. The data were submitted and stored in a secure manner (password protected and encrypted), maintaining confidentiality of participants.
Instruments
Couple Satisfaction Index–4 (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge, 2007)
The CSI is a four-question measure of couple satisfaction that has high convergence with other well-validated measures of couple satisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007). This shortened version was developed from the longer, 32-item instrument by selecting those questions that provided the most information about couple satisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007). For example, the CSI-4 asks respondents to indicate on a scale of 0 to 6 (from extremely unhappy to perfect) the “degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.” Developed using item response theory, Funk and Rogge (2007) found that the CSI-4 was highly correlated (r = .88) with the Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959) and with all three versions of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-32, r = .87; DAS-7, r = .84; and DAS-4, r = .91; Sabourin, Valois, & Lussier, 2005). The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the CSI with this sample was .82.
Gay and Lesbian Acceptance & Social Support Index (GLASSI)
1 Since no such measure existed, the GLASSI questionnaire was developed by the researchers to measure participants’ degree of outness both as a sexual minority individual and as a member of a same-sex couple as well as the amount of social support they receive both individually for being a sexual minority and for their same-sex relationship from the following people: mother, father, siblings, extended family members, supervisor/boss, coworkers, heterosexual friends, sexual and gender minority friends, leaders of religious communities, members of religious communities, and health care provider. Perceived support was measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not accepting/supportive) to 5 (extremely accepting/supportive), from the aforementioned people in the social networks of same-sex couples. For example, participants were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, “How supportive are your siblings of your current same-sex couple relationship?”
A principal components analysis was conducted on the 22 GLASSI items pertaining to perceived support, using oblique rotation (direct oblimin; Field, 2009). Because of high correlations between support for one’s sexual minority identity and support for one’s couple relationship from the same person (such as between “How supportive is your mother of your gay/lesbian/bisexual identity” and “How supportive is your mother of your same-sex relationship”), the items assessing perceived support specifically regarding one’s individual sexual minority identity were removed and only the items assessing support for the same-sex couple relationship were used in the analyses reported below. Additionally, since far fewer people responded to the two items pertaining to support from people in one’s religious community (from one’s religious leader and from the members of one’s religious community) than to any other questions, these were not included in the principal components analysis but were used to create a separate subscale labeled “support for the same-sex couple from religious community” (GLASSI-REL), with α = .90. Overall, the item loadings suggested that the first component (items about support from mother, father, siblings, and extended family) represented support for the same-sex couple from the family of origin (GLASSI-FAM, α = .78 in the current study) and that the second component (items about support from coworkers, supervisor/boss, heterosexual friends, and health care provider) represented support for the couple from the larger, heterosexual community (GLASSI-HC, α = .73). These two subscales, along with the support from the religious community subscale (GLASSI-REL), compose the final total GLASSI score (whose items’ internal consistency was α = .82).
Anticipated Impact of Marriage Scale (AIMS)
The AIMS also was developed by the researchers because no existing measure was found to assess the anticipated effect of same-sex marriage on individuals’ relationships with various people (partner, mother, father, siblings, children, employer/boss, coworkers, heterosexual friends, LGBT friends, neighbors, leaders of one’s religious communities, members of one’s religious communities, and health care providers) in their life. Participants rated the anticipated effect on each relationship using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (it will get worse) to 7 (it will improve). For example, participants were asked, “If you were to get legally married to your current partner, indicate how you think it might affect your relationship with your father.”
A principal components analysis was conducted on the 13 items that compose the measure through oblique rotation (direct oblimin; Field, 2009). Eleven items were retained in the analysis (the 2 items related to one’s religious community were removed for use as a separate 2-item composite scale), which resulted in a single 11-item scale. Reliability analyses revealed that removing one of these 11 items (anticipated impact on one’s children) increased the internal consistency from α = .75 to α = .78. Hence, the final total AIMS scale contained 10 items and had an internal consistency reliability of α = .78.
Qualitative questions
Open-ended questions were used to explore participants’ anticipation of the various effects of marriage on their lives. Participants were asked to describe, giving examples, how they imagined marriage would affect the following: life in general, the couple relationship, relationships with other family members, relationships with friends, future plans as individuals and as a couple, ways of handling conflict in one’s couple relationship, willingness to take care of one’s partner through serious illness or disability, commitment to the relationship, trust in the love of one’s partner, feelings of permanence in one’s relationship, self-esteem as a sexual minority, and degree of outness or visibility as a couple. The present article reports an analysis of participants’ responses only to the first open-ended item: “If you were to get legally married to your current partner, how do you think it might affect your life in general?” This item was selected for analysis in the present study because it was the most general of all the items, enabling participants to report whatever they spontaneously felt might be the impact of marriage in any aspect of their lives; thus, it attended more to the overall research query than the other research questions.
Qualitative Data Analysis
A slightly modified version of the grounded theory–based process of data analysis described by Rennie, Phillips, and Quartaro (1988) was used to analyze the qualitative data in this study, wherein the first two authors divided individual responses to the question into “meaning units.” Each meaning unit was grouped into themes based on shared meanings. At each stage of analyses of the data into higher order sets of categories, the first two authors met together to collaboratively develop themes and categories. Discussion was held until consensus was reached.
Credibility checks
In qualitative research, confidence in the validity of the results is augmented through credibility checks (Morrow, 2005). Credibility was provided by the method of consensus between investigators. In this study, in the initial meaning unit development stage and at each subsequent stage, the first two authors discussed the meaning units and higher order categories for agreement. When there were differences about categorization, the data in question were discussed until consensus was reached.
A second form of credibility was provided through a process of confirmability, the ability of results to be corroborated by others (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Confirmability was strengthened not only through regular meetings between the two first authors but also through a third rater check. A third rater coded the first 23% of participant responses into meaning units. There was an 89% convergence between the third rater’s and the original groupings; a reanalysis process was used to resolve discrepancies.
Last, credibility was increased by continual rereading of the transcripts in their entirety. These transcripts were constantly compared with the hierarchy that was developed from isolated units of meaning. This ongoing process allowed the investigators to decrease the likelihood that the piecing apart of the data resulted in a misrepresentation of the participants’ responses.
Results
Quantitative
Correlations were run among the primary variables of interest (the CSI, GLASSI-HC, GLASSI-FAM, GLASSI-REL, AIMS) and the continuous, demographic variables: length of relationship, length of time cohabitating, age, level of education, and attendance at house of worship. The GLASSI subscales had small, positive relationships with one another (GLASSI-FAM and GLASSI-HC, r = .374, p < .001; GLASSI-FAM and GLASSI-REL, r = .218, p = .013; GLASSI-HC and GLASSI-REL, r = .250, p = .004). Length of time in relationship had a moderate positive correlation with age (r = .635, p < .001) and a large positive correlation with length of time cohabitating (r = .901, p < .001). Age and length of time cohabitating were also moderately positively correlated with each other (r = .601, p < .001).
In addition to these reasonably expectable relationships, other correlations were found among the variables. Religious attendance was slightly negatively correlated with age (r = −.119, p = .003), with level of education (r = −.155, p < .001), and with GLASSI-REL (r = −.222, p = .014). Scores on the AIMS had small but highly significant positive relationships with age (r = .199, p < .001), with length of time in relationship (r = .173, p < .001), and with length of time cohabitating (r = .122, p = .003), suggesting that older, longer term, and longer time living together couples expected a significantly more positive (but small) effect of marriage. Significant, albeit small, positive associations were also found between the GLASSI-FAM and the CSI (r = .153, p < .001) and between the GLASSI-HC and the CSI (r = .208, p < .001). That is, support for the couple’s same-sex relationship from family members and from heterosexual members of the couple’s social network was associated with greater couple relationship satisfaction, as would be expected.
Gender differences on the five principal variables were analyzed with t tests. The only significant gender difference found on any of the five variables was that women scored significantly higher (M = 21.79, SD = 2.76) than men (M = 20.94, SD = 2.93) on the CSI, t = −3.35 (n = 562), p < .001. To determine if there were any racial differences, a multivariate analysis of variance with race as the independent variable and the questionnaire-dependent variables was conducted. The multivariate analysis of variance was not significant, F(15, 319) = .748, p = .725, so no further analyses pertaining to race were conducted.
Qualitative
Analyses of the qualitative responses to the question about how participants thought marriage would affect their life in general resulted in a hierarchy consisting of five layers derived from 1,258 original meaning units. These meaning units were arranged in increasingly higher order groupings. These groupings, in ascending order, are as follows: individual meaning units, themes, categories, classes, and core cluster. The themes were categorized into 10 categories, which were then classified into five classes. These five classes fall under the resulting, overarching core cluster, “Life [would feel] more whole somehow, like for a few short moments I could take fuller breaths, knowing that the most basic, critical parts of my being were not being ignored and denied.” In other words, from top to bottom, the levels of the hierarchy are labeled as follows: core cluster, classes, categories, themes, and individual meaning units (see Table 1 for a visual display of the breakdown of the classes and categories).
Classes and Categories, With Number of Participants Who Contributed to Each
Class A: We’d All Be Happier and Healthier
Many participants responded to the question about how their life would be affected by marriage by describing an anticipated increase in psychological health. This sentiment cut across four categories: the participants’ individual well-being, the well-being of their same-sex relationship, their family and children’s welfare, and their social interactions in the larger society.
Category A1
In the first category—improvement in one’s well-being—participants mentioned themes including an increase in self-esteem, psychological relief, and reduced stress from the legal oppression and lessened self-doubt, fear, and anger. Others spoke about feeling more secure in their identities and more enriched as human beings. One of the participants spoke directly to this sense of well-being and relief when she shared,
I think I would feel more secure and confident in every single area of life. . . . When Nancy Pilosi got picked to be Speaker of the House, I cried. I wasn’t expecting to cry Because . . . I HAD NO IDEA I would feel so deeply moved when it [a woman had been chosen for that position] finally happened. I think that is how I will feel if [marriage] is legalized. I think I will realize, in a way I can’t now, how marginalized I [currently] feel.
Category A2
The second category that emerged was related to the health of the relationship, revolving around permanence and commitment in their relationship. One participant stated, “It will be a commitment for life that will endure us, a better and more beautiful relationship.” Others also spoke about this increased sense of commitment to the relationship, such as “. . . when I get in a fight or get tired of my partner, I cannot simply dump him and move on.” A sense of freedom from having to pretend (presumably from pretending to not being a couple) was another theme mentioned by some of the participants.
Category A3
The third category in this class involved improvements in the lives of their family and children, including and most saliently feeling significantly less stress about their well-being (28). One participant said,
It’d help the children accept my partner more. It crushes my heart that the kids have to be so conflicted, they want to call her “stepmom” but because they are being told we are not legally married and she is NOT their step-mom, they don’t know what to call her. Hopefully in time they will figure it out for themselves, but if we were legally married they wouldn’t need to think about it.
Another stated “It would provide comfort to our children that our relationship is as important as all other people.” Some commented on the relief in knowing that the care and custody of their children could not be “manipulated by other family members.”
Category A4
Last, several participants mentioned an anticipated improvement in their social interactions, mainly in terms of feeling more comfort. One participant mentioned that “we’d finally enjoy the public support and endorsement of family and friends.” The issue of being able to use marriage language was a highly endorsed theme, exemplified by one participant who said, “It would affect normal conversations when we met new people, because when I say my ‘husband’ and I, I probably wouldn’t get weird looks,” and another who wrote the following: “It would be easier and more resonant to say, ‘This is my wife,’ rather than, ‘This is my domestic partner.’ I’d love to say ‘wife.’ It’s shorter and more profound.”
Some participants talked about looking forward to having reduced awkward social interactions. A salient theme mentioned by many involved an ease in finally being treated as a unit. One woman, a homemaker, said, “I won’t be asked, ‘Why aren’t you working?’” Another said, “We’d feel more seen, and treated as the family that we are.”
Class B: We Would Have More Ease and Security in Our Daily Life, Knowing We Have the Full Rights of Any Married Couple
The categories in this class had to do with a greater effortlessness needed to get through life. Four main categories fell under this class: specific benefits, less stress related to benefits, joint decision making, and a sense of security.
Category B1
Nearly every participant listed various financial and legal benefits that would be afforded to them if they were able to legally marry. These benefits, such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights, already afforded to legally married different-sex couples, were seen as “providing more protection for us.” Many spoke about the significant improvement these marriage benefits would have on their finances, in particular, because of tax benefits.
Category B2
Similarly, respondents talked of how much less stress they would have to endure, with respect to health care, finances, legal issues, socializing with others, and travel and relocation. Many talked just of the fact that “taxes would be less complicated” as couples could file jointly as a married couple. In addition, they spoke of the system through which they could change their names already being in place and that issues related to immigration and travel would be less cumbersome and more straightforward. Many participants mentioned that paperwork in their life would be simplified. Participants also indicated a sense of freedom that would result if they no longer had to deal with the bureaucratic issues related to marriage exclusion. A few participants indicated that they would have more time available to do other activities, and a couple of participants indicated that they would have more flexibility in their life planning.
Category B3
Perhaps the most poignant among their responses in this class were those related to being able to make joint decisions. This category was distinct from the theme under Category A4, which specifically involved being treated as a unit by those in one’s social network. It also seemed different from the category under Class C in which participants described the anticipation of being viewed and treated by others in the larger society as a legitimate couple. Rather, this category was characterized more by the functionality of the couple as a couple. Several wrote of looking forward to being able, like other married couples, to make decisions on behalf of their partner as well as simply making decisions as a “unit.” Regarding making decisions on behalf of one’s partner, most described decisions related to health:
I worry about whether they will call me if she gets in an accident, and I worry that if there came a time to make an end of life decision, that it won’t be me; and always I worry, when she dies, am I going to have to fight to be able to keep the things that we have shared together, amongst other worries.
Additionally, the term unit was explicitly mentioned by various participants with regard to looking forward to being able to function as one.
Category B4
Alongside the reduced stress in many areas of one’s life, participants also wrote about an anticipated sense of security that would come with marriage. For example, one person wrote, “We would not have to ask if domestic partners are covered by insurance or considered on applications. It would bring peace of mind and a feeling of being wholly protected as opposed to partially protected.” Similarly, “We would both have more ease and security in going through our daily life.” These responses seemed to suggest that participants expected marriage not just to carry with it fewer hassles and worries but to additionally bring on a greater feeling of stability, protection, and safety.
Class C: We Would Be Viewed as a “Real” Couple
Two primary categories having to do with the ways in which same-sex couples are viewed by others emerged from the participants, one related to the acknowledgement or recognition of the couple and the other having to do with validation and legitimization as a real couple.
Category C1
Several participants used the term recognition and others used the word respect in describing what would be different if they were allowed access to marriage. In elaborating on the profound change she anticipated experiencing based on a visit to a country where marriage is legal, one woman wrote that it felt free to “physically walk[ing] around in a community where my relationship with my life partner was recognized and accepted by the government.”
Category C2
Many also talked of expecting marriage to lead to a greater legitimization of their couple relationship, forming the second category in this class. “Marriage is grown-up, real, rather than erzats [sic], we’d have greater gravitas, than some clumsy formulation like legally registered domestic partner.” Another respondent thought marriage would “lessen the general public’s view that it is okay to discriminate because the government does it.” Many spoke of no longer having a “frowned-upon lifestyle.” A large number of participants explicitly commented on the importance of being seen as a “valid” or “real” couple.
Class D: We Could Let Go of That Anger at Not Having Equal Rights
This class was not divided into any categories, but instead comprised themes involving a sense of justice. Participants wrote of a sense of vindication in finally being accorded the same rights as heterosexuals, of “. . . finally get[ting] what we deserve.” This particular theme came up among six of the participants. One person aptly commented that “We could let go of that anger [at] not having equal rights.”
Class E: Life Wouldn’t Change
Approximately 20% (n = 135) of the participants indicated that they did not anticipate any changes coming from marriage but did not elaborate on this theme. It is critical to note, however, that even though 135 people indicated that they expected no changes in their life as a result of having access to marriage, a full 97 of those 135 participants then went on to describe the ways in which life would, indeed, change with marriage. Thus, in fact only 38 participants indicated that they expected no changes to come with marriage. Additionally, although very few in number, six participants indicated that their life would become more difficult or would in some way worsen as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage. One person specifically wrote that it would not bring about a change in attitudes among others.
Core Cluster
“Life felt more whole somehow, like for a few short moments I could take fuller breaths, knowing that the most basic, critical parts of my being were not being ignored and denied.” The woman whose words compose the core cluster eloquently captured the varied sentiments expressed by the participants, as she described what it was like for her while she and her partner were visiting Niagara Falls and as they walked across the border into Canada. Her portrayal of this visit that “hit [me] on a deep and profound level . . .,” seemed to depict what others described anticipating feeling, with the legalization of marriage. Although she did, in fact, already have this multifaceted experience, albeit briefly, while visiting another country where same-sex marriage is legal, her description matched what other participants described as their own anticipated experience of legal same-sex marriage. This core cluster embodies the increased psychological well-being, greater ease, recognition, and acceptance that encompass being a “real” couple, including a new sense of relaxation that would come from letting go of resentment about being excluded from marriage and treated unequally.
Discussion
Although participants in this study overwhelmingly anticipated a variety of positive consequences from marriage, the older among them seemed to specifically expect greater improvement in their relationships with significant people in their lives. The longer they had been in a relationship with their partner and the longer they had lived with their partner, also, the more they expected marriage to benefit these important relationships. The findings also demonstrate a connection between social support for the relationship and couple satisfaction. The social support participants perceived from both their family of origin and from the larger, heterosexual community was positively associated with satisfaction in the couple relationship. Although positive and statistically significant, these correlations were small in magnitude, probably in part reflecting the restricted range for this very highly committed (domestic partnered) sample of individuals.
Similar to Lannutti’s (2008) participants who spoke of the importance of social network recognition, our participants commented on the fact that marriage would render them more visible and legitimate (to others) as a couple. Indeed, the longer their same-sex relationship, the more participants expected marriage to positively influence various relationships in their life. It seems plausible that this connection could work in both directions—improved social network connections could help nurture and sustain the couple relationship, just as a committed, legally recognized couple relationship might help generate more support from others.
Interestingly, in their interview-based study of Massachusetts’ same-sex couples in relationships of 20 or more years, Porche and Purvin (2008) found that older couples were not terribly interested in marriage, per se. These two findings seem to differ, insofar as believing that marriage will have a positive impact on one’s relationships at least implies that marriage is desirable. However, all the participants in the current study, including the older ones, were already in registered domestic partnerships, a self-selected group that is likely to already think positively about the idea of marriage for themselves.
On the other hand, Oswald, Goldberg, Kuvalanka, and Clausell’s (2008) finding that relationship duration predicted creation of legal documents protecting the couple (e.g., mutual beneficiary wills and health care powers of attorney) is consonant with the current study’s findings pertaining to relationship duration and anticipated impact of marriage. Moreover, Reczek, Elliott, and Umberson (2009) explored union formation and commitment making among sexual minorities in long-term partnerships and found that those who chose to have ceremonies did so at much later ages than the average age of first marriage among heterosexual couples. Perhaps, at least at this point in time, the process by which same-sex couples become couples and make commitments to one another exhibits a different (elongated) trajectory compared with that of different-sex couples. Indeed, because of heteronormative assumptions across the lifespan, coming out in adulthood can often resemble a second adolescence of sorts (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002). For sexual minority adults, then, serious contemplation of relationship commitment, including marriage, may not seem immediately relevant or potentially beneficial if one has only just recently come out.
Participants’ relationships with people outside of the couple stand out as significant, in both the connection between the support received from others and their satisfaction in their couple relationship as well as an expectation of the improvement in these relationships with the legalization of marriage. Evidently, how others engage with and support the couple appears crucial to the primary relationship. The significance placed on these connections seems to speak directly to the sentiment that emerged as the core cluster from participants in this study, an anticipation of being acknowledged in an essential, life-giving way: “[I] . . . could take fuller breaths, knowing that the most basic, critical parts of my being were not being ignored or denied.”
Many expected, specifically, that their same-sex relationship would become more stable. Other research has also suggested that legalization for same-sex couples is associated with an increased permanence (Balsam et al., 2008; Hull, 2003), stability (Brown, 2000), strength (Lannutti, 2005), and solidification of relationship commitment (Alderson, 2004; Hull, 2003). In their study of predictors of structural commitment (execution of legal documents) and moral commitment (commitment ceremonies) among cohabitating same-sex couples, Oswald et al. (2008) indeed found that the duration of the relationship significantly predicted structural commitment.
The most commonly cited expected improvement to accompany marriage (indicated by over half of the participants) was related to specific legal and financial benefits they would be able to enjoy. Nearly all the participants in Lannutti’s study (2005) on the meaning of same-sex marriage in the LGBT community mentioned that legal recognition would signify legal equality (e.g., financial benefits and family security) for sexual minorities and, therefore, be beneficial for the community. Participants in Hull’s study (2003) on the desirability and enactments of marriage also overwhelmingly revealed legal and financial reasons for their support. Hull points out that many same-sex couples actually stand to gain no legal or financial benefits because they live in states that do not recognize marriage conferred elsewhere. In the current study, although all the participants do live in the state of California, they too stand to gain no legal or financial benefit from statewide marriage in California given that, as domestic partners, they already enjoy all the relevant statewide benefits. In fact, most of the desirable financial benefits discussed by the participants in the present study would be federally conferred and would not be applicable to same-sex marriages in California or other states because such marriages are not recognized by the federal government in the United States. These results, then, are particularly interesting because many of the benefits participants focused on would not come into being as a result of same-sex marriages performed within states at this time.
One explanation for this phenomenon is that there is a frequent conflating in people’s minds of federal and state rights and benefits, much like there seems to be a conflation between the ceremonial/symbolic with the legal aspects of marriage (Clarke, Burgoyne, & Burns, 2006). Indeed, Peel and Harding (2004) mention that these conflations around marriage are prevalent even in the literature. Participants in this study may not be fully aware of what benefits they actually can and cannot enjoy. In California, for example, domestic partners have hospital visitation privileges for sick, injured, or incarcerated partners, sick care, and similar family leave, but they cannot get any federal tax benefits nor are they eligible for important federal benefits such as surviving spouse’s social security income. Thus, despite participants’ hopes for equality with the granting of marriage rights, full marriage rights will not be granted until same-sex marriages are recognized by the federal government in addition to participants’ state governments. It may be that participants seem to equate state and federal recognition because they expect that state-based marriage will eventually lead to federal recognition of same-sex marriages in the future.
The institution of marriage is a status well understood by everyone. In contrast, having separate, differently named institutions such as domestic partnerships or civil unions seems to cause confusion and distress. Because many people in same-sex relationships appear not to be aware of the state-conferred benefits to which they already are entitled, they may not be taking advantage of them. These entitlements are commonly associated with marriage because marriage is a culturally established, known entity. In granting full marriage to same-sex couples, people in same-sex relationships may better understand the institution of which they are a part and, therefore, have a better grasp of their rights.
Some observers (Reczek et al., 2009, p. 740) argue that “the practical importance of marriage is overshadowed by its symbolic importance,” suggesting that the institution itself carries abstract weight that cannot be explained simply by the many benefits understood to be guaranteed through it. In a relevant court case, the legal system took note of this very likelihood:
The current statutes—by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership—pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry. (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 2008, p. 81)
The separation between the practical or legal benefits and the symbolic may be artificial in that it seems that there is symbolic import in the very legalization of marriage. In Yip’s (2004) study of Christian same-sex couples, he found that those who were in support of legal marriage (as opposed to an alternative legal institution) explained that marriage is a socially recognized term with significant religious meaning. There may exist a similarly nonreligious, yet still powerfully symbolic meaning, for nonreligious people as well. As such, those in same-sex relationships desire the recognition even when it is not accompanied by any additional benefits.
It is important to note that a significant number of participants indicated that they anticipated no life change with marriage. Nevertheless, most of these people then went on to indicate the various ways in which their life would, in fact, change. It is difficult to know why so many participants indicated that they expected no changes in their life to occur with the legalization of same-sex marriage but then expressed the positive consequences they anticipated to come with marriage. Previous studies have uncovered a similar dialectical pull among participants, wherein seemingly contradictory expressions were found (Lannutti, 2005; Shulman et al., 2009). Struggling with the expectation of improvements in their lives alongside a recognition that they have a significant relationship that is already analogous to being married may be part of the experience for some of these participants. Alternately, it is possible that some of these participants do recognize that California marriage will not bring any additional legal benefits beyond those already enjoyed by domestic partnerships.
Strengths and Limitations
Because all these data, including the qualitative responses, were collected via the Internet rather than through in-person interviews, responses were typically brief, and the researchers were unable to follow-up for clarification or further elaboration. However, the sheer volume of responses (because of the large sample size) helped elicit a saturation of the data. Similarly, because these data were not collected in person, there was no opportunity to instruct participants to focus on California’s (then) impending legal decision regarding same-sex marriage rather than on federal marriage equality. In analyzing the qualitative responses, it became evident that many participants responded either with federal marriage in mind (i.e., tax benefits, immigration rights, etc.) and/or with a lack of understanding of what benefits California marriage would provide. Nevertheless, the mixed methodology used in the current study allows for triangulation of the results, providing richness as data derived from specifics of each method were analyzed.
The participants in this study were unique in that they, like those in only a few other studies (e.g., Clarke et al., 2006; Todosijevic, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2005), were anticipating a state Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage legalization. They already had California domestic partnerships. This study, then, is unique in the sexual minority literature in its use of an intentional, rather than a snowball, sampling. By accessing a large cross section of registered domestic partners in California, this study was able to get at a broad picture of the experiences of many Californians in same-sex relationships at a time when marriage was first being considered by the state’s Supreme Court.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.