CCF Research Director Stephanie Coontz is cited in the SCOTUS decision legalizing same-sex marriage, June 26, 2015.
Check out this related story in the Seattle Times.
CCF Research Director Stephanie Coontz is cited in the SCOTUS decision legalizing same-sex marriage, June 26, 2015.
Check out this related story in the Seattle Times.
By Nancy Polikoff
Professor of Law
Washington College of Law, American University
npoliko@wcl.american.edu
The New Jersey Supreme Court has given the state Legislature a historic opportunity, and I don’t mean the chance to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The Legislature has the chance to enact civil unions for all couples – same-sex and different-sex. New Zealand does it. So does the Netherlands, under the name “registered partnership.” Maine and the District of Columbia recognize “domestic partnerships” for both straight and gay couples, although both give domestic partners fewer rights than those accorded married couples. Even New Jersey’s current domestic partnership law allows different-sex couples to register – but only if both partners are over 62, presumably a nod to the impact of remarriage on certain pension and retirement benefits.
Civil unions for all couples acknowledge that there is meaning in the word marriage, and that it has a dark side. Marriage once made women entirely dependent on their husbands by not allowing wives to own or control any property, including the money they earned. The first wave of the feminist movement, in the mid-19th century, is associated primarily with the fight for women’s suffrage, but Elizabeth Cady Stanton remarked that the women who attended her speeches were most enthusiastic about her critique of marriage.
Until the 1970s, remarkably little changed. A husband had the right to decide where the family lived and a wife was required to take her husband’s surname. A husband who forced his wife into sexual intercourse committed no crime.
After widespread protests in the mid-20th century against the second-class status of women, the Supreme Court finally began dismantling explicit sex discrimination. But today’s equal legal status of husbands and wives obscures continuing power imbalances. A husband’s higher earning power virtually assures that the couple will live where he gets work; the vast majority of women change their names at marriage; violence against women continues unabated.
Religious marriage and legal marriage are distinct entities. In some denominations the subservience of the wife to her husband is an explicit component of her marriage vows, even though the law won’t enforce that promise. Different-sex couples might choose civil union over marriage to distance themselves from the religious connotation attached to marriage.
It’s reasonable to hope that someday couples seeking a legal status will go to a county building for a civil union, and those seeking a religious status will go to a house of worship. A couple seeking both would make two stops.
Some advocates for gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are demanding that the Legislature give them marriage, not civil unions, because a separate status for same-sex couples is discrimination. They’re right, but it’s discrimination that works both ways. Different-sex couples who want recognition for the family they form should be able to reject the word marriage in favor of a phrase with less baggage. And they shouldn’t have to be over 62 to do it.
The Council on Contemporary Families is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best-practice findings about American families. Our members include demographers, economists, family therapists, historians, political scientists, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, as well as other family social scientists and practitioners. Founded in 1996 and based at the University of Miami, the Council’s mission is to enhance the national understanding of how and why contemporary families are changing, what needs and challenges they face, and how these needs can best be met.
To learn more about other briefing papers and about our annual April conferences, including complimentary press passes for journalists, contact Stephanie Coontz, CCF’s Director of Research and Public Education: coontzs@msn.com.
By Michael J. Rosenfeld
Professor of Sociology
Stanford University
mrosenfe@stanford.edu, 415.205.1892
Prior to 1970, the overwhelming majority of all couples were same-race married couples. Couples who lived together outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or same-sex, were practically invisible. Inter-racial marriages were extremely rare. In fact, until 1967, many states in the US had laws against interracial marriage. In Virginia, for example, all nonwhite groups, including blacks, native Americans, and Asians, were prohibited from marrying whites. Even in states that never had laws against racial intermarriage, such as Illinois and New York, racial intermarriage was rare before the end of the 1960s.
Since 1970 there has been a steady increase in all types of nontraditional romantic unions. The number of same-sex couples living together openly has climbed significantly, while the number of heterosexual unmarried cohabiting couples has soared, from 3.1 million in 1990 to 4.6 million in 2000 to 5.2 million in 2005. This paper, however, focuses on the rise of inter-racial or intercultural marriages between whites and Asians, non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics, and between whites and African-Americans, the kinds of marriage that were illegal in many states prior to 1967.
State laws prohibiting interracial marriages were finally struck down in the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision. Yet such marriages continued to be very uncommon well into the 1970s. In 1970, less than 2% of married couples in the US were interracial. By 2005, the number of such marriages had risen almost fourfold, with interracial couples representing 7.5 percent of all married couples. Although this percentage may seem small, it is a dramatic increase over several decades, and many signs point to it accelerating in the future.
Why are we seeing more interracial and intercultural marriages?
Some of the rise in racial intermarriage since 1970 is due to immigration, which has increased the racial diversity of the US since 1965. Hispanics and Asians are the predominant groups among the new immigrants, and because neither Asians nor Hispanics are residentially segregated to the extent that blacks in the US historically have been, Asians and Hispanics have substantial opportunity to socialize with members of other racial groups. The increased numbers of these immigrants have contributed to the rise in intermarriage between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, and the rise in intermarriage between Asians and whites.
The rise in black-white marriages cannot be due to immigration. One cause is improvement in race relations. Despite continued residential segregation and enduring prejudices, the post Civil Rights era has led to more socialization between blacks and whites, and to more intermarriage. Polls show that the percentage of Americans who want interracial marriage to be illegal has declined precipitously since the early 1970s, and there is much higher acceptance of inter-racial unions than at any time in the past 200 years.
A second factor in the increase in interracial marriages is the rising age of marriage. Age at first marriage is substantially later than it ever has been in US history. In the 2005 American Community Survey (ACS), half of US- born women age 26.5 and half of US-born men age 28.2 had never been married. This is considerably higher than in any other historical period.
As young adults postpone settling down to start their own families, they have greater exposure to different kinds of potential partners. Young adults in their 20s spend time going to college, traveling, working, and encountering a broader diversity of potential mates. Later age at marriage also makes it more difficult for parents to veto or even influence their children’s choice of mates. Sure enough, among people married in the same calendar year, later age at marriage is associated with higher rates of interracial marriage. And second marriages are more likely to be interracial than first marriages.
The rise of intermarriage in the US means that racial barriers no longer have quite the strength and power they used to have. Race continues to be a powerful division in American life, however. Racial intermarriage remains far less common than intermarriage between high school dropouts and people with college degrees, or intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants, or intermarriage between Northerners and Southerners.
And although the number of black-white marriages has grown from 55,000 in 1960 to 440,000 in 2005, black-white marriage remains the most unlikely racial combination in the US, given the sizes of the black and white populations. Hispanics only slightly outnumber blacks among American adults, but the number of Hispanic marriages to non-Hispanic whites (1.75 million) was four times larger than the number of black-white marriages in 2005. There were fewer than half as many Asians as blacks in the US in 2005, but the number of Asian- white marriages (755,000) was substantially larger than the number of black- white marriages. In the marriage market, as in the residential housing market, blacks continue to be the most socially isolated group in the US.
Nevertheless, it is clear that acceptance of interracial unions is on the rise. In 1972, five years after all laws in the US against interracial marriage had been declared unconstitutional, 39% of Americans still favored laws against racial intermarriage. This percentage has steadily dropped over time, so that by 2002 only 10% of Americans surveyed in the General Social Survey said they favored laws against interracial marriage. Young adults are more favorably disposed to interracial marriage than their elders: only 4% of young adults surveyed in 2002 favored laws against interracial marriage. Another sign of changing times: Barack Obama’s parents were married in Hawaii in 1960, and at that time their marriage would have been illegal in more than half of US states, because they were an interracial couple.
Although the long-term impact of immigration has been to greatly increase the number of interracial marriages in the US, and to increase the percentage of whites married to nonwhite minorities, recent research suggests that the massive immigration of Asians and Hispanics during the 1990s has led to at least a temporary increase in the percentage of Asians married to Asians and the percentage of Hispanics married to Hispanics, as the pool of potential Asian and Hispanic mates has grown. For more information on this countervailing trend, contact Dan Lichter, Professor of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University, dtl28@cornell.edu.
On the issues faced by couples and families in interracial and intercultural marriages, contact Kerry Ann Rockquemore, Professor of African-American Studies and Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago: rockquem@uic.edu, 312.996.4694.
On the issues faced by couples and children from interracial marriages and the similarities/differences in the experiences of same-sex couples and interracial couples, contact Brian Powell, Professor of Sociology, Indiana University: powell@indiana.edu, 812.855.7624.
On interracial and intercultural marriages and partnerships involving Hispanics or Latinos, contact Gonzalo Bacigalupe, Associate Professor and Director of Family Therapy, University of Massachusetts: gonzalo.bacigalupe@umb.edu, 617.287.7631.
On transracial adoption and persons who are both transracially adopted and multiracial, contact Gina. M. Samuels, Assistant Professor at the School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago: gmsamuels@uchicago.edu, 773.834.2163.
On the issues faced by interracial same-sex couples, contact Mignon R. Moore, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles: moore@soc.ucla.edu, 310.206.9678.
The Council on Contemporary Families is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best-practice findings about American families. Our members include demographers, economists, family therapists, historians, political scientists, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, as well as other family social scientists and practitioners. Founded in 1996 and based at the University of Miami, the Council’s mission is to enhance the national understanding of how and why contemporary families are changing, what needs and challenges they face, and how these needs can best be met.
To learn more about other briefing papers and about our annual April conferences, including complimentary press passes for journalists, contact Stephanie Coontz, CCF’s Director of Research and Public Education: coontzs@msn.com.
July 6, 2006
By Gary Gates
Senior Research Fellow
The Williams Institute
UCLA School of Law
gates@law.ucla.edu; 310.825.1868
The New York Court of Appeals ruled this morning that the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage for same-sex couples, and that state lawmakers, not the courts, are better suited to consider the issue,” reports The New York Times. Thus, Massachusetts remains the only state that permits same-sex marriage.
It is time to redouble our efforts to understand the diversity in family forms that led to 44 couples pressing this case. Media images of lesbians and gay men create the impression that most of them are white urban dwellers who have high incomes and whose main preoccupations are shopping for expensive clothes, preparing gourmet food, or eating at upscale restaurants. As a result, a variety of stereotypes and misconceptions exist about lesbian and gay families with children. The Council on Contemporary Families recently drew up a quiz to test your knowledge of this population. The research material was prepared by Gary Gates, Ph.D, a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.
I. What percentage of same-sex couples are raising children in the United States?
a. 3 percent
b. 11 percent
c. 27 percent
II. In which state are same-sex couples most likely to be raising children?
a. California
b. Massachusetts
c. Mississippi
d. South Carolina
III. What percentage of children being raised by same-sex couples are non-white?
a. 10 percent
b. 30 percent
c. 45 percent
IV. The median household income of different-sex married couples aged 25-55 with children in the U.S. is $60,700. What is the comparable figure of similarly aged same-sex couples raising children?
a. $96,200
b. $77,100
c. $51,900
V. Which of the following statements are true?
a. Most children being raised by same-sex couples are adopted.
b. Most research finds that children raised by gay and lesbian people fare as well as children from other families on a wide variety of child well-being measures.
c. Most children being raised by same-sex couples live in states where their parents can automatically obtain joint parental rights.
d. None of the above statements is true.
I. Answer: c. 27 percent
More than one in four of the nearly 600,000 same-sex couples identified in the U.S. census have a child under the age of 18 living in the home with them.
Source: Gary J. Gates and Jason Ost, The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, Urban Institute Press, 2004.
www.urban.org/gayatlas
II. Answer: c. Mississippi
Among the nearly 2,000 same-sex couples in Mississippi, as many as four in ten (41 percent) are raising children under age 18. Other states with high rates of child-rearing among same-sex couples include South Dakota (40 percent), Alaska (38 percent), South Carolina (36 percent) and Louisiana (35 percent).
Far from being an urban or coastal phenomenon, same-sex couples raising children are found in 96 percent of all counties in the United States. Three of the five large metropolitan areas with the highest rate of child-rearing among same-sex couples are found in Texas. San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth rank 1st, 4th, and 5th respectively. Bergen-Passaic, NJ and Memphis, TN rank 2nd and 3rd. In all of those areas, at least one in three same-sex couples are raising children.
Source: Gary J. Gates and Jason Ost, The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, Urban Institute Press, 2004.
www.urban.org/gayatlas
III. Answer: c. 45 percent
The children of same-sex couples are much more racially and ethnically diverse than those being raised by different-sex married couples. Among the children of same-sex couples, 55 percent are white, 23 percent are Latino/a, 15 percent are Black, 3 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 percent are Native American, the remaining 3 percent identified as some other racial category or as multi-racial. Thus 45 percent of these children are non-white compared to 30 percent of the children of different-sex married parents.
This racial and ethnic diversity among the children reflects similar diversity among their parents. While 73 percent of different-sex married couples (age 25-55) with children are white, only 59 percent of their same-sex coupled counterparts identify as white. Thus, same-sex parents are more racially and ethnically diverse than their different-sex counterparts and their children are even more diverse.
Source: R. Bradley Sears, Gary J. Gates, and William B. Rubenstein, Same-sex Couples and Same-sex Couples Raising Children in the United States: Data from Census 2000, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2005.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USReportpdf
IV. Answer: c. $51,900
Same-sex couples with children in the U.S. have fewer economic resources to provide for their children than do their different-sex married counterparts. They have lower household incomes, are less educated, are less likely to own a home, and live in homes of lesser value.
Source: R. Bradley Sears, Gary J. Gates, and William B. Rubenstein, Same-sex Couples and Same-sex Couples Raising Children in the United States: Data from Census 2000, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2005.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USReportpdf
V. Answer: Only b. is true.
a. False. Adoption rates are higher among same-sex couples than among different-sex couples (6 percent v. 4 percent), but the vast majority of children living with same-sex couples were identified as “natural born” in the U.S. Census.
Source: R. Bradley Sears, Gary J. Gates, and William B. Rubenstein, Same-sex Couples and Same-sex Couples Raising Children in the United States: Data from Census 2000, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2005.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USReportpdf
b. True. Research on the impact of gay and lesbian parents on their children is relatively new and studies tend to be small and focused on subjects that are predominantly white and of relatively high economic status. However, findings across these studies are remarkably consistent in showing no negative consequences for children being raised by lesbian and gay parents with regard to standard child well-being measures.
Source: Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 66 (2), 2001.
c. False. About two-thirds of the quarter-million children being raised by same-sex couples counted in Census 2000 live in states that do not guarantee same-sex parents the right to petition courts for a second-parent adoption. Such adoptions ensure that both partners have legal status as parents. This status is important for a variety of reasons, including ensuring that either parent can make needed medical decisions for the child in an emergency situation.
Source: Lisa Bennett and Gary J. Gates, The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Children and Their Same-Sex Parents, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2004.
www.hrc.org/childrenreport
The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law is a national think tank dedicated to sexual orientation law and public policy. It advances law and public policy through rigorous and independent research and scholarship.
The Council on Contemporary Families is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best-practice findings about American families. Our members include demographers, economists, family therapists, historians, political scientists, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, as well as other family social scientists and practitioners. Founded in 1996 and based at the University of Miami, the Council’s mission is to enhance the national understanding of how and why contemporary families are changing, what needs and challenges they face, and how these needs can best be met.
To learn more about other briefing papers and about our annual April conferences, including complimentary press passes for journalists, contact Stephanie Coontz, CCF’s Director of Research and Public Education: coontzs@msn.com.
Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.