New Study Shows Same-sex marriage has strengthened the institution for all couples, study finds

[Daniel2]

Hard to believe it's been twenty years since legal recognition of same-sex marriage began in the United States... 

Much ado was made at the time, especially by religious conservatives, that marriage would be irrevocably 'harmed' by allowing same-sex couples the same protections as opposite-sex couples.  How have those dire warnings played out?

Quote

Study: Marriage equality has had a positive impact

Study: Marriage equality has had a positive impact – The Journal (the-journal.com)

 

Same-sex marriage has strengthened the institution for all couples, study says

By Susan Dunlap NM Political Report

 

Tuesday, May 21, 2024 10:54 AM Updated Thursday, May. 23, 2024 3:22 PM

 

A gay pride rainbow flag flies along with the U.S. flag in front of the Asbury United Methodist Church in Prairie Village, Kansas, in 2021. A recent study found same-sex marriage has strengthened the institution of marriage for all couples and improved benefits to children. AP File Photo

A recent study found that in the 20 years since Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to grant same-sex marriage licenses, same-sex marriage has strengthened the institution of marriage for all couples and improved benefits to children.

Rand, a social policy organization, reviewed 96 studies conducted over the 20-year period since Massachusetts began granting same-sex marriage licenses on May 17, 2004. The researchers found the opposite of what conservatives claimed when opposing same-sex marriage in the decades prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Instead of ill-effects on the institution of marriage, Rand researchers found that the lack of prohibition led to an increase of marriage for difference-sex partners as well as same-sex partners.

The researchers also did not find an increase of cohabitation of either same-sex or different-sex partners, as conservatives once feared. Rand also did not find a consistent change in divorce rates. But they found that since legalization for same-sex couples, young people’s attitudes toward the institution has improved.

Marshall Martinez, executive director of Equality New Mexico, said he was not surprised by the findings.

He said he thought that before marriage equality, the average straight person was not concerned with prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying and that the fight over marriage equality was a battle with the far right.

“They were blowing out of proportion that what we were out to do was to ruin whatever their view of marriage is,” he said. “How many thought marriage had to mean what the church thought it was?”

Martinez said the fact that marriage equality has been a national right since 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges, has meant that it’s much easier now for same-sex married partners to be recognized in a hospital without the partner in the waiting room having to bring in documentation to prove the couple are married.

Martinez said he has seen, first-hand, different-sex couples claim they are married in a hospital waiting room and the staff do not question the couple’s status, as they might question a same-sex couple.

“I would watch and think I know queer couples who had to get powers of attorney to get a basic update from a doctor after surgery,” he said.

Advocates often point to being able to make decisions for a loved one or even being able to visit a loved one in a hospital as a primary reason why marriage equality is so important.

Martinez said another reason is because the U.S. lacks universal health insurance. Being able to marry one’s partner can mean both partners can be on one partner’s health insurance. Although Martinez said that since gay rights activists in the early years of the HIV/AIDS crisis highlighted the importance of universal health care, he found the findings of increased health insurance for same-sex couples “bitter sweet.”

“I’m so grateful for folks who are able to access health insurance because they got married to somebody but it’s also really infuriating. Queer folks were at the forefront of the movement so long ago. The best we could get was to marry someone to get insurance,” he said.

But Martinez said the problem that ensues when one partner lacks good benefits while the other partner, who happens to have a job that provides such, has good benefits is one that resonates for the average American.

The Rand research found that, overall, since marriage equality, same-sex couples have reported lower stress, greater positive mood and fewer depressive symptoms, in addition to higher levels of health care, higher levels of health insurance coverage, and declining rates of sexually transmitted disease and substance abuse disorders.

Martinez said the American Heart Association’s findings a few years ago showing that individuals within the LGBTQ community have higher rates of poor cardiac health came to mind when he looked at the Rand findings.

“Just the benefit of marriage in terms of health outcomes starts with, you have this partner: The government, the hospital, supervisors at work cannot ignore or undermine because the law exists. You have a base level of acceptance of respect for who you are and that immediately mitigates stress and trauma,” he said.

The study also found benefits to children since the beginning of marriage equality. Disparities in academic progress between children of same-sex couples and children of different-sex couples have reduced. Health insurance benefits for children of same-sex couples also improved. When states began legalizing same-sex marriage 20 years ago, same-sex couples within those states experienced higher earnings, more stable relationships and a higher rate of homeownership, the study found.

Martinez said the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling was “a very clear message.”

“You are deserving of a life of happiness and sustainability that includes marrying the partner of your choice. You get to have your fantasies about that. Lots of little lesbian girls and gay boys got to dream about their wedding dress for the first time. That is a classic American experience as a child,” he said.

Martinez said that one reason why the findings that same-sex marriage has improved the institution of marriage even for different-sex couples didn’t surprise him was because of research EQNM did a few years ago in New Mexico. They found that 73% of New Mexicans said in the poll that they have a close, personal relationship with someone who identifies as LGBTQ.

“The vitriol we saw from conservatives regularly bringing up marriage equality had a harmful impact on straight folks. Those were our nieces and cousins who were being vilified in the press for the audacity of wanting what their parents had,” he said.

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Subsequent to the study, this Q&A by the researchers is really insightful on the benefits of marriage for all, as well:

Quote

Q&A: These researchers examined 20 years of data same-sex marriage. They didn't find any harms

Q&A: These researchers examined 20 years of data same-sex marriage. They didn't find any harms (msn.com)

Story by Karen Kaplan

Twenty years ago this month, Marcia Kadish and Tanya McCloskey exchanged wedding vows at Cambridge City Hall in Massachusetts and became the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the United States.

The couple had been together since 1986, but their decision to wed was radical for its time. In 2004, only 31% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 60% were opposed, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

Much of that opposition was fueled by fears that expanding the definition of marriage beyond the traditional union of a man and a women would undermine the institution and be destabilizing to families. Researchers at the Rand Corp. decided to find out if those predictions turned out to be true.

A team from the Santa Monica-based think tank spent a year poring over the data. The result is a 186-page report that should be reassuring to supporters of marriage equality.

"If there were negative consequences in the last 20 years of the decision to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, no one has yet been able to measure them," said Benjamin Karney, an adjunct behavioral scientist at Rand.

Karney, who is also a social psychologist at UCLA, led the report with Melanie Zaber, a labor economist and economic demographer at Rand. They spoke with The Times about what they learned.

Does marriage make people better off?

Benjamin Karney: On average, yes. People who are married experience fewer health problems, they live years longer, they make more money, and they accumulate more wealth than people who marry and divorce or who don’t marry at all. People who are married also experience more stable and positive psychological health, and they have sex more frequently than people who are not married.

All those benefits accrue primarily to people who are in happy marriages. Unhappy marriage is very, very harmful. But most people who are married are happy — that’s why they stay married.

What prompted you to examine same-sex marriage now?

BK: At the time that these policies were changing, there were a lot of arguments on both sides about whether the consequences would be positive or negative. Twenty years is a long time, and during that time, a lot of research has been conducted. It seemed like a good time to ask the question: What did happen as a consequence of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples? So that's one reason.

The second reason is that in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion said explicitly that this Supreme Court should consider reviewing and potentially overturning other decisions, and he named the 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples by name. Given that people may be wondering about the merits of that decision, it seemed like a good time to evaluate the consequences of that decision, and that’s what we’ve done.

What did you find?

BK: We found 96 studies across a range of disciplines. Some are in economics. Some are in psychology. Some are in medicine. Some are in public health.

Melanie Zaber: We wanted it to be research that actually measured something. There were a number of more qualitative or theoretical or legal arguments that we excluded.

BK: What I found most notable is that all of the studies drew the same conclusions: There was either no effect or beneficial effects on any outcome you could look at. That’s 20 years of research, 96 studies, and no harms.

Does it seem plausible that the results could be so one-sided?

BK: I was not surprised. There’s a lot of good theory in family science and relationship science to argue that if you extend rights to a group that’s been stigmatized, that group should do better, and the majority group should not be affected. Indeed, that’s what we found.

MZ: I don't find it particularly surprising. When we say there are no harms, that doesn't mean everything’s coming up sunshine and roses — it means sunshine and roses or nothing. In this case, where the prediction was something negative, then nothing still feels like sunshine and roses.

What sorts of things did these studies measure?

BK: There were three general categories. The largest group was looking at outcomes for LGBT individuals and same-sex couples. The second bucket looked at the children of same-sex parents. And the third bucket was the effect on everybody else.

There was no evidence of harms anywhere.

 

That’s interesting because opponents of these policy changes very strongly — and very explicitly — predicted there would be harms. They predicted it in front of the Supreme Court, arguing that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, the consequences for the country will be negative and severe and unavoidable and irreversible.

Who benefits the most from legalizing same-sex marriage?

BK: Same-sex couples. Their relationships last longer when they are able to marry and cement their commitment. Their incomes go up. Their mental health improves.

That mental health improvement extends to LGBT individuals whether or not they are married. Even if you’re not married, if you’re a member of a sexual minority and live in a world that validates same-sex relationships, that relieves a stressor and has measurable benefits on physical and mental health.

What’s behind these improvements?

BK: The effects on health seem like they operate partly through employer-based health insurance being extended to spouses.

The mechanisms for mental health have been described by minority stress theory. Living in a society that is constantly sending you a message that you are less worthy of equal treatment is stressful, partly because it leads to discrimination. Being the target of discrimination is stressful, and that stress has real mental and physical consequences.

You found 96 studies about gay marriage. Why did you conduct your own research as well?

MZ: Some of those studies were conducted when only a few states had marriage for same-sex couples. A state like West Virginia or Wyoming might say, “Well that’s all well and good that you have evidence from Massachusetts or Vermont, but New England isn’t the center of the universe.”

By looking at a broader range of years, we’re better able to capture some of those states that did allow same-sex couples to marry but weren’t among the first to do so. We have reason to think those states may be very different environments. Our approach was to use each state as a quasi-experiment.

What did all that data tell you?

MZ: The headline from our new analysis is no negative impacts and some positive ones.

We see an increase in marriage, and that increase is driven not just by newly marrying same-sex couples, but also by an increase in marriage among different-sex couples. That was a bit surprising to us.

What do you think was going on?

MZ: There are a few different mechanisms for this, none of which we can explicitly test.

One could be allyship. There are individuals who identify as cisgender straight individuals, but they want to show their allyship so they delay marriage until everyone’s able to marry.

There’s an increasing number of individuals who identify as bisexual in the United States. Even if they’re marrying a different-sex partner, they may be trying to have validation of their broader identity.

The argument we find most compelling is that having people loudly clamoring for all the great things that come along with marriage made people in the broader population say, "Oh hey, getting married means people can go visit me in the hospital, and that if I’m in an accident there’s no concern about who my property will go to, and we have more access to health insurance." Talking about that may have made some people realize, "You know, marriage actually is pretty helpful."

BK: If you hear about a restaurant that everyone’s trying to get into, you want to eat at that restaurant.

MZ: That is an excellent way of putting it!

Do you think this research will persuade those who were concerned that same-sex marriage would have terrible consequences?

MZ: That’s our goal — to put evidence out to the public so policymakers can make informed choices.

BK: I’d like to believe so. At the time those arguments were made, they were speculative. People were trying to predict the future. Now we don’t have to predict the future. Twenty years have passed and we have the data. We can document what has happened.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by Daniel2

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Rand researchers found that the lack of prohibition led to an increase of marriage for difference-sex partners as well as same-sex partners.

Reporting it as cause and not correlation. I haven’t finished reading it yet, but I am not sure how they could be sure it was causal. 
 

Finished reading, didn’t talk about that aspect of methodology. Anyone have a link to the study?  

Edited June 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

. Lots of little lesbian girls and gay boys got to dream about their wedding dress for the first time. That is a classic American experience as a child,”

This makes me laugh. I never once fantasized about my wedding, reception or whatever (and would have limited it to immediate family only and no party if I had known what the experience was like for me).

[Daniel2]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Reporting it as cause and not correlation. I haven’t finished writing it yet, but I am not sure how they could be sure it was causal. 

A fair point. Even so, the lack of prohibition for same-sex couples certainly didn't have the negative effect that many were predicting twenty years ago, so an improvement in marriage rates for opposite-sex partners, even as a correlation vs. a causation, certainly still disproves the predicted negative consequences. 

Edited June 4, 2024 by Daniel2

[Calm]

Daniel, not seeing links to where you found the articles from.  They might be useful. 

[Daniel2]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Reporting it as cause and not correlation. I haven’t finished writing it yet, but I am not sure how they could be sure it was causal. 
 

Finished reading, didn’t talk about that aspect of methodology. Anyone have a link to the study?  

Yeah, it took me a minute to find it, too:

Twenty Years of Legal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in the United States: Evidence Review and New Analyses | RAND

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

A fair point. Even so, the lack of prohibition for same-sex couples certainly didn't have the negative effect that many were predicting twenty years ago, so an improvement in marriage rates for opposite-sex partners, even as a correlation vs. a causation, certainly still disproves the predicted negative consequences. 

I believe the finding of positive effects is most likely. However, logically speaking there could have been negative effects and something else occurred that was really really positive so there was a combined positive change. I doubt that happened, but precision requires me pointing it out.  

Edited June 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yeah, it took me a minute to find it, too:

Twenty Years of Legal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in the United States: Evidence Review and New Analyses | RAND

Thank you. Looks like you have to download the study (it’s free).  I have things to do today, so will leave it to others to dissect the study to see if it’s appropriate to declare causation.

[Daniel2]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Daniel, not seeing links to where you found the articles from.  They might be useful. 

Links to both original articles added, as well. 

[Daniel2]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe the positive effects is most likely. However, logically speaking there could have been negative effects and something else occurred that was really really positive so there was a combined positive change. I doubt that happened, but precision requires me pointing it out.  

I love and appreciate your precision, as well as the desire to verify and read original sources.  My apologies I didn't include them from the beginning!

[Calm]

Good find, very interesting topic.  I have been wondering about this for 20 years, lol.

[Daniel2]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thank you. Looks like you have to download the study (it’s free).  I have things to do today, so will leave it to others to dissect the study to see if it’s appropriate to declare causation.

It's 186 pages, so it may take a bit of time to digest it. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Someone could be nice and just make a handy line chart, showing the divorce rate of same sex marriages on one line, and traditional marriages on another line, across the years...

Edited June 4, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Doctor Steuss]

12 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Someone could be nice and just make a handy line chart, showing the divorce rate of same sex marriages on one line, and traditional marriages on another line, across the years...

Either my statistics Google-fu has grown rusty, or there's a surprising lack of states and/or government entities that differentiate or track whether a marriage dissolution is from a same-sex, or opposite-sex union.

The best I can find is annual rates reported from only two states, that are now over three years old, that showed the annual divorce rate for same-sex marriages as half that of opposite-sex marriages.

In my unwarranted personal opinion, as time goes on (and the number of marriages that have had time to move out of the "honeymoon phase" increases), I think that rate will begin to skew a bit and probably move somewhat towards equilibrium with opposite-sex.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Either my statistics Google-fu has grown rusty, or there's a surprising lack of states and/or government entities that differentiate or track whether a marriage dissolution is from a same-sex, or opposite-sex union.

The best I can find is annual rates reported from only two states, that are now over three years old, that showed the annual divorce rate for same-sex marriages as half that of opposite-sex marriages.

In my unwarranted personal opinion, as time goes on (and the number of marriages that have had time to move out of the "honeymoon phase" increases), I think that rate will begin to skew a bit and probably move somewhat towards equilibrium with opposite-sex.

There is also a divide between mlm and wlw marriages ending in divorce. A lot more wlw marriages end in divorce. Some of this is attributed to wlw couples moving towards marriage super fast while mlm couples tend to wait longer before marriage or eschew it entirely.

[Pyreaux]

Good or bad, as a Libertarian, I celebrate the win of the Equal Protections clause. I'm not in favor of laws made purely for our own good, if it's against our wills.

[The Nehor]

On 6/4/2024 at 2:19 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Someone could be nice and just make a handy line chart, showing the divorce rate of same sex marriages on one line, and traditional marriages on another line, across the years...

Pretty hard to do actually. Plus it would be thrown off by how many more preexisting hetero marriages there are.