Are Gay or Straight Relationships More Stable Peer Reviewed

• Journal Listing
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC5095690

Census. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Aug 1.

Published in last edited form as:

PMCID: PMC5095690

NIHMSID: NIHMS801273

Same-Sex and Dissimilar-Sex Cohabiting Couple Relationship Stability

Wendy Manning

ⁱSociology Section and Center for Family unit and Demographic Research, 233 Williams Hall, Bowling Greenish State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, Us

Susan Brown

¹Sociology Department and Centre for Family and Demographic Research, 233 Williams Hall, Bowling Dark-green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, United states of america

Bart Stykes

²Section of Folklore, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77341-2446, United states of america

Abstruse

Relationship stability is a key indicator of well-existence, but well-nigh U.South.-based inquiry has been limited to unlike-sex couples. The 2008 console of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) provides an untapped data resource to analyze relationship stability of aforementioned-sex cohabiting, unlike-sex cohabiting, and different-sex married couples (due north = 5,701). The advantages of the SIPP data include the recent, nationally representative, and longitudinal data drove; a large sample of same-sex activity cohabitors; respondent and partner socioeconomic characteristics; and identification of a state-level indicator of a policy stating that marriage is between one human and ane woman (i.e., DOMA). We tested competing hypotheses about the stability of aforementioned-sex activity versus dissimilar-sex cohabiting couples that were guided past incomplete institutionalization, minority stress, relationship investments, and couple homogamy perspectives (predicting that same-sex couples would be less stable) besides equally economic resource (predicting that same-sex couples would be more stable). In fact, neither expectation was supported: results indicated that same-sex cohabiting couples typically experience levels of stability that are similar to those of different-sex activity cohabiting couples. We also found evidence of contextual effects: living in a country with a constitutional ban against aforementioned-sexual practice marriage was significantly associated with higher levels of instability for aforementioned- and different-sex cohabiting couples. The level of stability in both same-sex and different-sex activity cohabiting couples is not on par with that of different-sex married couples. The findings contribute to a growing literature on health and well-being of same-sex couples and provide a broader understanding of family unit life.

Keywords: Union Stability, LGBT, Cohabitation, Marriage

Introduction

The human relationship stability of marriage and cohabitation has been studied extensively amidst different-sex couples (Amato 2010; Manning and Cohen 2012; Teachman 2002). To appointment, just a handful of studies have examined human relationship stability among same-sex couples, with the bulk of this work on European couples (Andersson et al. 2006; Kalmijn et al. 2007; Lau 2012; Ross et al. 2011). In the United States, almost recent work has focused on distinctions amid legally recognized relationships (marriages or ceremonious unions) (Badgett and Herman 2013; Rosenfeld 2014). Given that not all aforementioned sex activity couples had the legal choice to ally until June 26, 2015, it is of import to examine human relationship stability among same-sex cohabiting couples.

Cartoon on recently collected, nationally representative, longitudinal data from the 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), nosotros extend the limited knowledge about stability in same-sex relationships by evaluating how aforementioned-sex relationship stability compares with the stability of different sexual practice cohabitations and marriages in the U.S. context. From the incomplete institutionalization, minority stress, human relationship investments, and couple homogamy perspectives, we anticipate that same-sex activity cohabiting couples are less stable. Alternatively, from an economical resources perspective, nosotros expect that same-sex cohabiting couples are more than stable than different-sex cohabiting couples. In addition to testing these competing hypotheses, nosotros also consider the role of social context gauged past residence in a state with a policy declaring marriage to be between one man and 1 woman. Because relationship stability is a fundamental indicator of well-being amidst different-sex activity couples, it is important to empathize how same-sexual activity couples fare—peculiarly in the gimmicky context, which is marked by abrupt social and legal change (Gates 2013).

Groundwork

Prior research on the stability of aforementioned-sexual activity couple relationships rests largely on work in Europe, with but a handful of recent U.S.-based studies. Some of the European studies accept assorted formally recognized same-sexual practice relationships (registered partnerships, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships) and different-sexual activity marriages. Drawing on Swedish and Norwegian population registration data from the mid- to late 1990s, Andersson and colleagues (2006) reported that same-sex activity couples in registered partnerships accept college instability than their counterparts in different-sex marriages. In 2004, the British government formally recognized ceremonious partnerships in England and Wales. Recent evidence shows that same-sexual activity registered partnerships are more stable than different-sex marriages in these countries (Ross et al. 2011). This difference in stability could exist due to early on adopters, who were the most stable same-sexual activity couples.

European-based inquiry on cohabiting same-sexual activity relationships has found that aforementioned-sexual practice relationships are less stable than different-sex relationships. Kalmijn et al. (2007) analyzed linked revenue enhancement record data for unions formed in the 1990s in the Netherlands and reported that same-sex couples over age thirty in relationships of at to the lowest degree ane year in length experience higher instability inside a x-year window than either different-sex cohabiting or married couples. These are probable non formalized relationships because registered domestic partnerships and legal marriage in the netherlands were introduced in 1998 2001, respectively (Steenhof and Harmsen 2003). Drawing on two longitudinal nativity cohort studies (16- to 34-year-olds 1974 to 2004) in United kingdom, Lau (2012) showed that cohabiting same-sexual activity couples have higher dissolution rates than unlike-sex married or cohabiting couples.

Evaluations of the U.S. context are important because the policy and social environments surrounding same-sex relationships in the United States are quite distinct from those in Europe. The paucity of contempo inquiry on same-sex relationship stability in the U.S. context reflects the lack appropriate information with sufficient sample sizes of same-sex couples. A few earlier studies have considered stability among same-sex couples; for case Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) and Kurdek (1998, 2004) drew on select convenience samples from the late 1970s and 1980s, respectively, and reported lower stability among same-sex activity couples.

A few recent studies drew on representative data sets that indicated like levels of stability among same-sexual practice and different sexual practice-couples in the United States, accounting for legal or formal condition of the human relationship. Badgett and Herman (2013) used aggregate-level U.S. administrative data and constitute that amid couples in legally recognized unions (domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages), dissolution rates are higher amongst different-sex activity than same-sex couples. They acknowledged that the stability difference may exist partly due to the selection of same-sex activity couples who enter into formalized relationships also as the legal complications in the Usa surrounding the dissolution of same-sexual practice marriages and partnerships. Rosenfeld (2014) employed longitudinal information from the How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) data set, which contains an oversample of same-sex couples, and observed stability from the indicate of relationship (not marriage) initiation. He reported that over a three-twelvemonth fourth dimension span starting in 2009, same-sex activity couples in formalized or marriage-similar relationships (n = 137) share like odds of dissolution equally different-sex activity married couples.

Recent U.S. enquiry focusing on unmarried same-sex couples suggests similar odds of relationship stability for same-sex and dissimilar-sex couples depending on gender or residence of the couple. Rosenfeld (2014) reported that in the HCMST sample, unmarried different-sex and aforementioned-sexual practice couples (sexual, dating, and cohabiting) (n = 266) share similar dissolution rates. Joyner et al. (2014) drew on a subsample of aforementioned-sexual activity couples from the young developed cohort (ages 26–32) of a large nationally representative survey, the National Longitudinal Report Adolescent to Adult Health (n = 277); they constitute that relationship stability among aforementioned-sex and different-sexual practice couples (sexual, dating, cohabiting, and married) depends on the gender and residence of the couple. Young adult female same-sex couples have levels of stability that are comparable to those of unlike-sexual activity couples, but male person same-sex couples have higher levels of relationship instability than different-sexual activity couples (Joyner et al. 2014). Farther, the observed stability differences are partly related context, which is measured past the neighborhood concentration of same-sex couples and canton-level voting patterns. Same-sex couples in neighborhoods with high concentrations of same-sexual practice couples or living in counties with greater shares of the population voting for a Democratic presidential candidate feel levels of relationship stability on par with different-sexual activity couples (Joyner et al. 2014). These studies all advance our agreement of aforementioned-sex couple stability, simply no U.S. research has focused on the relationship stability of cohabiting same-sexual practice relationships accounting for the policy climate toward same-sex spousal relationship. It is important to focus on cohabiting same-sex relationships because they constitute about four out of 5 same-sex residential relationships (Badgett and Herman 2013), and until recently, same-sex marriage was a legal option in just a few states.

Explanations for Relationship

Stability Aforementioned-sex couples may experience lower levels of relationship stability considering of incomplete institutionalization, minority stress, relationship investments, and couple homogamy. The incomplete institutionalization (Cherlin 1978) and minority stress (Meyer 1995) perspectives on intimate relationships fence that aforementioned-sex relationships may exist more unstable considering of weaker social support and a lack of institutionalization of same-sex relationships. Based on an incomplete institutionalization perspective, nosotros expect greater instability amongst aforementioned-sexual practice than dissimilar-sex couples. This hypothesis builds on the incomplete institutionalization framework that Cherlin (1978) introduced to empathize stepfamilies and that Nock (1995) extended to report cohabitation. It is well known that cohabiting couples do no non enjoy the aforementioned stability every bit married couples, in part because of the lack of legal and social support. Further, pick processes are operating, with disadvantaged couples less often having sufficient economic resources to marry. Couples may experience stress and conflict as they navigate roles and relationships that lack shared norms and expectations. In addition, consistent with a minority stress approach, aforementioned-sex couples may face barriers due to discrimination and challenges to establishing and maintaining high-quality relationships in some communities (Mohr and Daley 2008; Otis et al. 2006). Cohabiting with a member of the same sex may generate stress because it represents a public presentation of a gay or lesbian individual with their partner.

Lower levels of stability may be observed amid same-sex couples partly because of sociodemographic indicators, the presence of children, and couple homogamy in terms of historic period, race, and education. Outset, children stand for a human relationship-specific investment that acts as a barrier to dissolution (Levinger 1965), and children tend to deter separation (Brines and Joyner 1999; Kurdek 1998). Still, human relationship-specific capital, including children, is lower among same-sex cohabiting couples (Payne 2014). Further, children in aforementioned-sex families are typically the product of a prior dissimilar-sex human relationship (Goldberg et al. 2014), significant the same-sex family is alike to a stepfamily. Stepfamily relationships are associated with considerable relationship stress that can undermine relationship stability. 2d, homogamy is associated with greater stability amongst unlike-sex couples (Bratter and Rex 2008; Phillips and Sweeney 2006; Teachman 2002). Prior work indicates that homogamy (age, race/ethnicity, instruction) is lower amid same-sex than dissimilar-sexual activity couples (Rosenfeld and Kim 2005; Schwartz and Graf 2009).

Alternatively, aforementioned-sex cohabiting couples may feel greater stability considering they are more advantaged in terms of education, income, and homeownership, and they are less likely to be poor or to receive public assistance (Gates 2009; Krivickas 2010; Williams 2012, 2013) than different-sexual practice cohabitors. Nosotros expect that afterwards nosotros suit for socioeconomic factors, any stability advantage for same-sexual practice cohabiting couples relative to different-sex cohabiting couples may diminish.

Supportive state policy contexts provide some protective buffers for same-sex couples. Gays and lesbians who alive in states with supportive policies (employment bigotry and bullying laws) targeted at sexual minorities feel lower levels of serious psychological atmospheric condition (Hatzenbuehler et al. 2009). Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, some state-level policies forbade the recognition of marriages to same-sexual activity couples: a Defense force of Marriage Act (DOMA). The absence of a DOMA in a state did not mean that the country was supportive of marriage to same-sex couples, simply rather that the country was non actively against marriages to same-sex couples. Although these policies are not associated with the formation or stability of marriages to dissimilar-sexual practice couples at the aggregate level (Dillender 2014; Langbein and Yost 2009), no study has assessed this policy indicator and the stability of same-sexual activity or different-sex activity cohabiting couples. Nosotros innovate policy environment for aforementioned-sex couple relationships by including an indicator measuring whether the state of residence is one in which DOMA has been enacted by a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a adult female and a man. Prior to 2008, the initial year of this console of the SIPP, 26 states had enacted such DOMA policies. ^one

Same-sexual activity couples in cohabiting relationships may experience more stability than their different-sexual activity counterparts because they practise not take a marriage option. Same-sex couples with characteristics that support stability are likely to remain cohabiting if they cannot legally marry. At the time of the initial SIPP data collection in 2008, sporadic rulings supported same-sexual activity union, but the only states to consistently let same-sex activity union were Massachusetts (May 2004) and Connecticut (November 2008). Consequently, at the time of the survey, the primary option available to aforementioned-sex activity couples was cohabitation, not legal marriage. Thus, some same-sex couples in cohabiting relationships may have viewed cohabitation as an alternative form of marriage and experienced high levels of stability.

We contrast the stability of same-sex cohabiting couples and different-sex activity married couples. From a policy perspective, aforementioned-sex couples who largely do not have the option to ally may experience a level of stability on par with that of different-sex married couples. Alternatively, the strong legal and social supports for wedlock besides as the minority stress perspective atomic number 82 us to expect that same-sex cohabiting couples are less stable than different-sex married couples. Married different-sex couples and same-sexual practice couples share similar median earnings, with same-sex couples reporting somewhat higher levels of education than their dissimilar-sex activity married counterparts (Gates 2015; Payne 2011; U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Thus, nosotros expect that accounting for economic resources does not explain the stability departure betwixt same-sex activity cohabiting and dissimilar-sex married couples.

Current Study

The nowadays analysis of the 2008 SIPP data provides an opportunity to prospectively study a broad age range (16–87 years old) of same-sex and different-sex activity couples over a iv-year flow. We focus on two competing hypotheses. We look different-sex activity couples (married and cohabiting) to accept greater human relationship stability than same-sex cohabiting couples partly considering of incomplete institutionalization of cohabitation, minority stress experienced by same-sex couples, fewer relationship investments by same-sex couples, and greater levels of heterogamy amidst same-sex couples. Alternatively, based on the greater levels of socioeconomic resources in same-sex couples we expect like or higher levels of stability in aforementioned-sexual activity cohabiting than different-sex cohabiting couples. Finally, given the shifting policy climate surrounding same-sex marriage, we exam whether a state-level indicator of a constitutional amendment banning aforementioned-sex marriage is associated with lower relationship stability.

Data

We used the 2008 panel of the Survey of Income and Programme Participation (SIPP 2008 panel), a longitudinal study the Census Bureau conducted to provide reports on the sources and amounts of income, labor force participation, and welfare program participation and eligibility for the noncombatant noninstitutionalized population of the Usa. The SIPP 2008 console included xiv waves that were fielded betwixt 2008 and 2013. At each wave, data about the previous four months were collected, yielding data that spanned 56 continuous months. All members of the household residing at the initial address units were considered original SIPP sample members. These original SIPP sample members were followed over time fifty-fifty if they moved to other places or formed other families. At follow-up waves, data were as well collected about people who coresided with original SIPP sample members. Using respondent and partner identification numbers nosotros could track whether couples continuously coresided. Thus, the SIPP provides a unique opportunity to examine how the families of the original SIPP sample members evolve over time. Using the cadre respondent's household roster for the offset reference month in the panel, we identified 2,283 cohabiting couples (126 same-sex activity and two,157 different-sex). By relying on the household roster, we identified but couples in which one partner was the household head; however, this arroyo had the added benefit that all couples entered the risk period at the same fourth dimension. We conducted discrete-time event history analyses in which126 same-sexual activity couples contributed 5,175 person-period observations, and the 2,157 unlike-sex couples contributed 75,369 person-period observations.

We addressed the 2nd enquiry question by including married couples at the time of starting time interview. To avoid longer elapsing marriages, we restrict the results in the tables to couples married five or fewer years (three,465 married couples). Sensitivity tests compared these estimates with those for couples marred 10 or fewer years (6,144 married couples), and results were similar across marital duration samples.

Measures

Dependent Variable

We measured wedlock dissolution with two variables: occurrence and timing. Nosotros specified the observation window as 2008 to 2013. A couple was coded as intact until one of the partners was not reported on the household roster (based on a partner identification number). The occurrence of dissolution was operationalized every bit a binary variable coded 0 for couples who had not experienced dissolution (were living together or married) betwixt September 2008 and Jan 2013, and 1 if they did. Timing was calculated in months, such that respondents were exposed to risk upon entry in the survey and exited the risk period on the appointment a partner was no longer in the household (for couples who separated earlier Jan 2013), were no longer observed in the data (partner dropped out of the report or provided inconsistent reports), or were censored by the end of the appointment of the last interview.

In supplemental analyses, we focused on respondents who formed unions later on the initial SIPP interview in an effort to assess the extent of left-censoring bias (n = 65 aforementioned-sexual activity and n = 1,760 dissimilar-sex cohabiting couples). We measured duration from the outset of the relationship to the signal of dissolution or censorship at the time of interview. We written report life tabular array relationship stability estimates along with relationship elapsing according to effect (stable or unstable). Although these results are not definitive, they provide some insights into assessing whether there could be similar levels of left-censoring bias in our primary analyses for aforementioned-sex activity and different-sex couples.

Focal Characteristics

We measured variables that identify characteristics of the couple and non just one member of the couple. A dummy indicator distinguished same-sex cohabiting couples (one) from unlike-sex cohabiting couples (0). This measure captures the gender of the members of the couple and their relationship as provided on the roster and not their sexual orientation. Given the small sample size, we could not distinguish female aforementioned-sex (northward = 65) and male person same-sex (n = 61) couples in all models, merely we do provide some descriptive findings. The identification of aforementioned-sexual practice couples rests on the accurate reporting of gender of the respondent and partner. The SIPP information collection provides some assurances virtually the accurate reporting of gender because interviews were conducted in-person with a series of interviewer validation checks. This arroyo is more thorough than surveys relying on respondent's self-reports.

Ii indicators measured historic period of the couple: a continuous indicator of the younger partner'south age (in years), and a dummy indicator for historic period heterogamy flagging couples for which the historic period divergence was at least five years (coded as 1). ⁱⁱ Race was coded into three mutually sectional and exhaustive categories: both partners are white (reference), one partner is nonwhite, and neither partner is white. Small prison cell sizes for same-sexual activity couples required that we apply these indicators of race. Educational attainment was divers as a time-invariant variable that combined both partners' highest level of educational activity, coded into a iii-level dummy indicator: both have a college degree or college (reference), only one has a college degree or higher, and neither partner has a higher degree. Further education refinements would have been preferable, but the sample size prevented detailed categorization of education. A continuous, fourth dimension-varying indicator for household income was included and logged to suit for skewness.

We measured the presence of children in the household: couples who lived in a household with at least i minor were coded as one, and those living in a household without modest children were coded as 0. We recognize that this child may or may not be the offspring of the head and his/her partner. Finally, we created a policy indicator at the state level to measure a context that creates a negative environment for same-sexual activity couples; this indicator DOMA land, flagged couples who lived in a land with a constitutional amendment explicitly banning same-sexual activity marriage as of 2007. In 2007, 26 U.S. states had a DOMA provision passed through a constitutional subpoena. This measure taps the social climate for aforementioned-sexual practice marriage because constitutional amendments required a voter majority rather than a legislative decision with voter back up. We admit that not enacting a DOMA policy does non necessarily signal support for same-sex relationships.

Analytic Strategy

Life table estimates illustrate the relative stability of same-sex and dissimilar-sexual practice cohabiting unions. This strategy provides estimates of the timing of instability and accounts for correct-censoring. Couples have been together for varying lengths of time, but the SIPP data do not include measures of the elapsing of the relationship prior to interview. Nosotros conducted supplemental analyses of couples who formed relationships during the SIPP period to indirectly appraise the potential role of left-censoring.

We estimated discrete-time, binary logistic, outcome history models at the bivariate and multivariate levels. Model fit statistics suggested that duration dependence is best modeled equally a simple continuous office for months. Multivariate models included an indicator denoting same-sex and different sex cohabiting couples, historic period, race, education, household income, and the presence of minor children. A third model was limited to the gender of the couple and the DOMA land indicator. Finally, the full model included union status, all sociodemographic characteristics, and the DOMA country indicator. The 2nd set of analyses is similar but includes married couples in life table estimates and event history models. We assessed whether variables contribute to model fit by calculating the log-likelihood ratio test for nested models.

Results

Weighted life tabular array estimates from time of interview to dissolution reveal that 27 % of same-sex couples and 28 % of different-sex cohabiting couples dissolve their relationship (Fig. 1). The time of observation is relatively brusque: 55 months, or almost four.5 years. ³ The cumulative proportion who dissolved their relationship within a 36-month time window (from interview to month 36) is 22 % for different-sexual activity and 20 % for same-sex couples. The dissolution levels for different-sex couples are consequent with reports from like-aged women in the NSFG at the 3-year human relationship elapsing mark (Copen et al. 2013). The boilerplate time to dissolution from interview date was 22.8 months for unlike-sex cohabiting couples and 23.7 months for same-sex couples. Among those who ended their relationship, the median duration was 20 months for both groups.

Cumulative proportion of dissolutions among same-sex cohabiting couples and unlike-sex cohabiting and married couples

We conducted supplemental analyses to assess left-censoring bug by contrasting a subset of same-sex cohabiting couples (n = 65) formed after the initial SIPP interview. Given the short ascertainment menses, they were typically observed for ii or fewer years (69 %). The cumulative proportion dissolving their relationship at the 2-year mark was 33 % amid unlike-sex couples and 40 % amid same-sex couples (results non shown). The average time to breakdown was 12.4 months for unlike-sex couples and 10.4 months for aforementioned-sexual activity cohabiting couples. The main analyses may be biased toward longer-term relationships, meaning that nosotros are missing disruptions that occur quickly after union formation. It appears that in the starting time two years of the human relationship, same-sexual activity cohabiting relationships dissolve at like but somewhat higher rates than different-sex couples. We believe this finding is tentative considering of the very modest sample size of same-sex couples, but it does align with Rosenfeld'southward (2014) analysis showing like rates of union stability in the early years of unmarried relationships.

Table i presents the characteristics of the aforementioned-sexual activity and different-sex activity cohabiting couples as well as different-sex married couples. The tabular array denotes meaning differences beyond the relationship types. The SIPP sample of aforementioned-sex and different-sexual practice cohabiting couples is similar in terms of age, race, income, and presence of children as reported in American Community Survey (ACS) data (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Table ane shows that respondents in same sex-couples had, on average, slightly older partners (historic period 41) than unlike-sex cohabiting (age 31) and married (age 33) couples. Aforementioned-sex couples were more often heterogamous in their ages (59 %) than different-sex couples cohabiting (39 %) and married (34 %) couples. The racial composition of same-sex couples was less diverse than unlike-sex couples. Nearly three-quarters (72 %) of aforementioned-sex couples were both white, in contrast to 59 % of dissimilar-sex cohabiting and 63 % of married couples. Same-sex cohabiting couples had much college boilerplate levels of educational attainment than unlike-sex couples. Whereas both individuals had at least a college degree in 42 % of same-sexual activity couples, this was true for merely 10 % of different-sexual practice cohabiting couples and 23 % of married couples. Same-sexual practice couples reported a significantly higher median household income their first month in the survey compared with their different-sex activity cohabiting counterparts. Same-sex couples less ofttimes had children in their abode (23 %) than different-sex cohabiting couples (44 %) and married couples (54 %). Finally, a smaller share of aforementioned-sexual practice cohabiting couples (31 %) lived in a state in 2008 that banned matrimony to same-sex couples (i.e., DOMA) than did different-sex cohabiting (42 %) and married (44 %) couples. Overall, same-sex cohabiting couples may exist more protected against dissolution than are different-sex cohabiting couples considering the onetime possess characteristics associated with lower dissolution, including higher income and education; however, same-sex cohabiting couples may receive less back up for their relationships, less often have relationship investments (children), and are less homogamous in terms of age and education.

Table 1

Couple characteristics, by union type

	Cohabiting Couples		Married Couples
	Same-Sex	Different-Sexual activity	Different-Sex
Different-Sexual activity
Dissolved (%)	26.8	28.iia	11.3*
Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics
Age different-sex
Younger partner's age (median)	41	31* a	33*
5+ years between partners (%)	58.7	39.ane* a	34.3*
Race (%)
Both partners white	71.ix	59.two* a	62.9*
I partner nonwhite	18.ii	13.eighta	10.6
Neither partner white	9.nine	26.nine*	26.5*
Educational activity
Both partners have at least a higher degree	42.iii	x.three* a	23.3*
One partner has a college caste	29.0	15.vii* a	21.ii*
Neither partner has a college degree	28.7	74.0* a	55.five*
Monthly Household Income (median) ($)	seven,934	4,141* a	5,609*
Pocket-sized Child in Household (%)	23.0%	44.1* a	53.6*
DOMA Country (%)	31.iii	41.7*	44.0*
Total(%)	2.0	34.seven	63.three
N (unweighted)	126	2,157	6,144

Table 2 presents event history logistic regression estimates of the odds ratio of dissolving a aforementioned-sex cohabiting relationship. Corresponding with the life table findings we presented, same-sex activity and different-sexual practice couples experience similar odds of relationship dissolution. The characteristics of unlike-sex and same-sex activity couples are included in Model 2. Later on we account for traditional predictors of relationship stability, same-sex and different-sexual practice cohabiting couples share like odds of instability. The sociodemographic characteristics operate in a like way in this model as in bivariate models. Couples who are younger experience higher odds of dissolution, but historic period heterogamy is not tied to dissolution. Couples with education heterogamy (in which only one in the couple has a higher degree) face a modestly higher dissolution risk than when both members of the couple have at to the lowest degree a college degree. Neither income nor presence of a child is associated with dissolution, internet of other covariates. The contrast of Model 1 and Model 2 shows that the sociodemographic indicators significantly contributed to model fit. Model 3 includes the measure of same-sex marriage and the indicator measuring state policy banning same-sex marriages. Couples living in a country with a ban against marriage to same-sex couples experience higher odds of dissolution. Model 4 shows that the policy-level variable is marginally related to human relationship stability net of the traditional sociodemographic predictors. ⁴ The log-likelihood exam indicates that the DOMA measure contributes to model fit (p = .09).

Table 2

Odds ratios from logistic regression predicting union dissolution for cohabiting couples

	Model one	Model ii	Model 3	Model 4
Same-Sex Matrimony	0.89	i.04	0.90	i.05
Younger Partner'due south Agea		0.98**		0.98**
Historic period Heterogamyb		one.04		ane.04
Race (ref. = both partners white)
1 partner nonwhite		0.97		0.98
Neither partner white		1.03		ane.04
Education (ref. = both accept at least a college caste)
One has a higher degree		ane.35†		one.36†
Neither has a college degree		1.24		one.22
Household Income (logged)		0.97		0.97
Small-scale Child in Household		0.98		0.98
DOMA Statec			ane.20*	one.17†
Calendar month	0.99†	0.99	0.99†	0.99
N (observations)	80,544	fourscore,544	80,544	80,544
Due north (couples)	2,283	2,283	two,283	2,283
Model χii	4.27	36.16***	7.08†	37.63***

Next, we contrast the relationship stability of aforementioned-sex and unlike-sex cohabiting couples with that of married couples. Figure ane shows that married couples have much higher levels of stability than cohabiting couples. Fewer than 1 in 10 (7.ix %) married couples had separated within three years of observation, and the cumulative proportion of married couples who eventually dissolved their wedlock was eleven.3 %. The mean duration amidst married couples who ended their relationships was 28.iii months. ⁵

Tabular array three presents the multivariate results showing that same-sex cohabiting and unlike-sex activity cohabiting couples have a statistically significant higher odds of dissolving their relationships than dissimilar-sex married couples at the bivariate level (Model 1). This finding likewise holds in Model 2, which includes the sociodemographic indicators. Model 2 shows that couples who are younger experience lower odds of dissolution, and age heterogamy is associated with higher odds of dissolution. Nonwhite couples feel higher odds of dissolution. Highly educated married and cohabiting couples (both have at to the lowest degree a college degree) have lower levels of instability. Children are associated with marginally significant lower odds of dissolution. Model 3, which includes the relationship type and the country-level policy measures, shows that cohabiting and married couples living in a country that has banned marriage of same-sex couples experience marginally significant higher odds of dissolution. The policy-level measure does not explicate the association betwixt union type (marriage or cohabitation) and dissolution. In the final model (Model 4), the sociodemographic indicators operate similar to those in the before models, but the DOMA indicator is no longer statistically significant. ^six Farther, the DOMA indicator does not significantly contribute to the fit of the model.

Tabular array 3

Odds ratios from logistic regression predicting union dissolution amongst married and cohabiting couples

	Model 1	Model 2	Model three	Model 4
Union Blazon (ref. = unlike-sex activity married)
Different-sexual activity cohabiting	2.86***	two.64***	2.86***	ii.65***
Same-sex activity cohabiting	ii.53***	two.82***	2.57***	2.85***
Younger partner's agea		0.98**		0.99**
Historic period heterogamyb		1.15*		1.15*
Race (ref. = both partners white)
1 partner nonwhite		one.16		1.17
Neither partner white		1.eighteen*		1.19*
Education (ref. = both take at least a higher caste)
One has a college degree		1.49***		1.49***
Neither has a college degree		1.62***		1.61***
Household Income (logged)		0.97		0.97
Minor Child in Household		0.86†		0.86 †
DOMA Statec			1.13 †	1.09
Month	1.00	ane.00	one.00	1.00
N (observations)	234,481	234,481	234,481	234,481
North (couples)	5,701	5,701	5,701	v,701
Model χ2	295.33***	369.41	297.00***	369.82***

Word

In this commodity, nosotros examined how relationship stability varies for aforementioned-sex activity and different-sexual activity cohabiting and married couples. Stable relationships are linked to loftier levels of emotional, financial, physical, and social health and well-being. We institute that same-sex and dissimilar-sex cohabiting couples share similar levels of human relationship stability.

Our results belie several perspectives commonly used to explain variation in relationship stability, including incomplete institutionalization, minority stress, relationship investment, couple homogamy, and sociodemographic perspectives. Nosotros hypothesized that same-sexual practice couples may experience higher levels of instability relative to their different-sex counterparts partly because same-sex activity couples less often have children (relationship-specific capital) and tend to exist more heterogamous. However, we establish no statistical difference in the levels of stability for different-sex versus same-sexual practice cohabiting couples. Also, our findings are non consequent with the hypothesis that same-sexual activity couples may feel higher levels of stability because of their more advantaged sociodemographic standing compared with unlike-sexual activity cohabiting couples. Mayhap countervailing forces are operating resulting in no deviation in stability. Alternatively, the findings from this study may spur researchers to pursue novel theoretical and empirical approaches to study aforementioned-sex activity couple stability past including assessments of variation within same-sex couples. The majority of these potential theoretical explanations are predicated on different-sex relationships and gender-based behavior. New piece of work will demand to challenge these presumptions and reconsider issues related to gender dynamics in relationships.

State-level policy targeted at preventing same-sex couples from legally marrying appears to be associated with relationship instability amongst cohabitors, regardless of gender composition. In other words, cohabiting couples who live in states without constitutional amendments supporting DOMA legislation experience higher levels of stability. ^vii These findings show that DOMA policy was associated with lower human relationship stability for cohabiting couples, which is consistent with prior piece of work that established the importance of context in assessments of stability (Joyner et al. 2014). Yet, DOMA policy is non associated with human relationship stability for married couples, which is consequent with aggregate-level analyses showing no association between DOMA policies and unlike-sexual activity union and divorce (Dillender 2014; Langbein and Yost 2009). The DOMA legislation indicator may be a proxy for other contextual variables that are associated with stability. Thus, the policy context appears to play some role in the stability of cohabiting relationships, and attention to other policies related to lesbian and gay protections is warranted. Further, research has shown that aforementioned-sex spousal relationship policies may have dissimilar furnishings depending on region or ethnicity (Trandafir 2014), suggesting that variability in the role of policy variables is a promising avenue for future studies.

Although our report provides new insights into human relationship stability, it has a few shortcomings. Start, considering couples were observed later on their relationships started, nosotros did not appraise stability from the showtime of the union but rather from the bespeak of interview. In our analyses, the cohabiting couples were related to the head of household. For this reason, nosotros cannot determine the extent of left-censoring. Still, our supplemental analyses of unions formed after initial interview showed same-sex activity cohabiting couples have slightly college but largely similar levels of instability early on on in the relationship, equally uncovered past Rosenfeld (2014). This finding is not conclusive but may propose that dissimilar-sexual activity and same-sex couples do not stop their relationships at dissimilar paces and that left-censoring operates similarly for both types of cohabiting couples. 2nd, the data include a limited set of predictor variables. Although we had measures about both members of the couple, the SIPP does not include indicators of some key factors institute to exist tied to human relationship stability, such as religiosity or detailed relationship histories that include prior cohabitations. Third, measuring same-sex cohabiting couples in survey data tin exist challenging. For case, there could be pick bias associated with who is willing to identify as a same-sex couple in census data (Black et al. 2000), and this willingness may vary by some of the same sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., education, race/ethnicity, and geographic location) on which we compared same-sexual activity and different-sexual practice couples. Separately, analyses of the demography and ACS data have identified response fault that potentially overestimates same-sex couples resulting from respondents' having selected the "wrong" gender (see Blackness et al. 2007; O'Connell and Lofquist 2009; O'Connell et al. 2010). The SIPP data are based on in-person CAPI interviews with several validation checks, providing additional confidence in the reporting of gender of the household members. The inclusion of sexual orientation in surveys would provide a farther cheque on the accurateness of the household roster data. Fourth, almost population-based surveys do non have large sample sizes of same-sexual practice cohabiting couples. Small sample sizes raise questions well-nigh statistical power, limiting our ability to detect significant differences. However, the small substantive difference suggests that the observed, nonsignificant difference in the share of same-sex versus different-sex couples dissolved is unlikely to be driven by the small-scale sample size; the difference in the share of same-sex activity versus different-sex activity couples dissolving would demand to exceed eight % to yield a statistically significant difference. A strategy for time to come research would be to oversample same-sexual activity couples. Fifth, these analyses practise not account for aforementioned-sex activity legal marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions. At the time of survey, few states had legalized aforementioned-sex wedlock, and merely a handful of states or cities recognized domestic partnerships or civil unions. Considering formal recognition is now mandated for every state, information technology is important that future piece of work recognize varying forms of formal recognition of same-sex relationships. Nosotros acknowledge that the sample size of same-sex couples is non sufficiently large to consider variation according to gender or parenthood status. 6th, the DOMA indicator is fixed based on residence in 2008. The vast majority (90 %) of the sample did not move to some other state, but it may be important to capture mobility in future work. Although this analysis provides a snapshot of a specific period in recent U.S. history, these results evidence the potential importance of policy climates for relationship stability. Finally, we recognize the contextual variable is not ideal, given that it captures state-level rather than local-level differences in context. Further, this indicator focuses on negative policy climate factors and ignores potentially positive climate elements, such as offering domestic partnerships, anti-bullying legislation, or protections against employment discrimination. Of course, the absenteeism of a DOMA policy does not necessarily signal support for same sex relationships. One style nosotros attempted to account for the state-level effects was to consider multilevel models merely exploratory analyses suggested we did non have the statistical power to estimate multilevel models. Future inquiry that permits more than-refined contextual analyses may prove a fruitful avenue of enquiry.

Our study contributes to a growing literature on the well-being of same-sexual practice couples and their families. Different the patterns observed in many European countries, in the U.s., same-sex activity and different-sex cohabiting unions announced similarly stable. Despite the distinctive demographic profiles of the two groups, their human relationship stability does not differ. Non surprisingly, both types of cohabiting unions—aforementioned-sexual practice and unlike-sex unions—are less stable, on average, than different-sex married unions. Hereafter research on same-sex activity couple stability is essential equally the legal and social context supporting aforementioned-sex couple relationship continues to change.

Footnotes

¹DOMA policies existed in some states based on a statutory basis but were not ramble amendments, meaning they did not require a voter majority to pass and could exist more than easily overturned. To appraise public opinion surrounding same-sexual practice marriages, nosotros focus on DOMA ramble amendments.

^twoWe use the terms "homogamy" and "heterogamy" equally they are commonly used in demographic research on cohabitation (Blackwell and Lichter 2004; Schwartz 2010), only we recognize that these terms technically refer to marriage.

ⁱⁱⁱAlthough the sample sizes do non support in-depth analyses of male-male and female-female couples separately, the life tables testify higher levels of instability among female (33 %) than male person (24 %) same-sex activity cohabiting couples. This pattern is consistent with some prior work, merely these are not conclusive findings. The male-male and female person-female couples are similar on all the sociodemographic indicators except presence of children, which is college among female-female couples.

⁴An interaction of the policy indicator and the same-sexual activity couple mensurate is non statistically meaning, suggesting that the DOMA constitutional subpoena is associated with human relationship stability in a similar manner for same- and different-sexual practice cohabiting couples. This result should be interpreted with caution given the pocket-sized sample sizes.

^fiveResults are similar when we limit the sample of married couples to those who have been married for fewer than 10 years.

⁶Additional analyses betoken that the DOMA policy indicator is not associated with relationship stability for subsamples of married couples.

^sevenSupplemental analyses demonstrated that the interaction term for union type and DOMA was not statistically pregnant. These results should be considered with caution given small sample sizes.

References

• Amato PR. Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family unit. 2010;72:650–666. [Google Scholar]
• Andersson G, Noak T, Seierstad A, Weedon-Fekjaer H. The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography. 2006;43:79–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Badgett MVL, Herman JL. Patterns of relationship recognition past same-sex couples in the United States. In: Baumle AK, editor. International handbook on the demography of sexuality. New York, NY: Springer; 2013. pp. 331–362. [Google Scholar]
• Black D, Gates G, Sanders South, Taylor Fifty. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the Unites States: Evidence from bachelor systematic data resources. Census. 2000;37:139–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Black D, Gates G, Sanders South, Taylor Fifty. The measurement of same-sex single partner couples in the 2000 U.S. Census. Los Angeles: California Middle for Population Enquiry; 2007. On-Line Working Newspaper Series, No. CCPR-023-07. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/72r1q94b. [Google Scholar]
• Blackwell DL, Lichter DT. Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married couples. Sociological Quarterly. 2004;45:719–737. [Google Scholar]
• Blumstein P, Schwartz P. American couples. New York, NY: William Marrow; 1983. [Google Scholar]
• Bratter JL, King RB. "Only will it last?": Marital instability among interracial and same-sex couples. Family Relations. 2008;57:160–171. [Google Scholar]
• Brines J, Joyner Grand. The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review. 1999;64:333–355. [Google Scholar]
• Cherlin AJ. Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American periodical of Sociology. 1978;84:634–650. [Google Scholar]
• Copen CE, Daniels K, Mosher WD. Start premarital cohabitation in the Usa: 2006–2010 National Survey of Family unit Growth. Hyattsville, Doc: National Center for Health Statistics; 2013. National Wellness Statistics Report, No. 64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dillender M. The death of marriage? The effects of new forms of legal recognition on marriage rates in the Us. Demography. 2014;51:563–585. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gates GJ. Same-sex spouses and unmarried partners in the American Community Survey, 2008 (Written report) Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA Schoolhouse of Police; 2009. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-ACS2008FullReport-Sept-2009.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Gates GJ. Demographics and LGBT health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013;54:22–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gates GJ. Demographics of married and unmarried same-sex couples: Analyses of the 2013 American Community Survey (Report) Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Constitute, UCLA School of Law; 2015. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Demographics-Aforementioned-Sex-Couples-ACS2013-March-2015.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Goldberg AE, Gartrell NK, Gates K. Research report on LGB-parent families (Report) Los Angeles, CA: Williams Plant, UCLA School of Law; 2014. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgb-parent-families-july-2014.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. Land-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99:2275–2281. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Joyner K, Manning WD, Bogle R. Social context and the stability of same-sex and different-sexual practice relationships. Bowling Green, OH: Center for Family and Demographic Research; 2014. 2014 Working Newspaper Series. [Google Scholar]
• Kalmijn M, Loeve A, Manting D. Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation. Demography. 2007;44:159–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Krivickas KM. FP-x-08 Same-sexual activity couple households in the U.S., 2009. Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family and Marriage Research; 2010. Family Profiles, Newspaper No. 14. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=ncfmr_family_profiles. [Google Scholar]
• Kurdek LA. Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal bear witness from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Matrimony and the Family. 1998;60:553–568. [Google Scholar]
• Kurdek LA. Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Matrimony and Family. 2004;66:880–900. [Google Scholar]
• Langbein L, Yost MA., Jr Same-sex marriage and negative externalities. Social Science Quarterly. 2009;xc:292–308. [Google Scholar]
• Lau CQ. The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and marriage. Journal of Spousal relationship and Family unit. 2012;74:973–988. [Google Scholar]
• Levinger G. Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review. Periodical of Matrimony and the Family. 1965;27:19–28. [Google Scholar]
• Manning WD, Cohen JA. Premarital cohabitation and marital dissolution: An examination of recent marriages. Journal of Matrimony and Family unit. 2012;74:377–387. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Meyer IH. Minority stress and mental wellness in gay men. Journal of Wellness and Social Beliefs. 1995;36:38–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mohr JJ, Daly CA. Sexual minority stress and changes in human relationship quality in same-sex couples. Periodical of Social and Personal Relationships. 2008;25:989–1007. [Google Scholar]
• Nock SL. A comparing of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Periodical of Family Issues. 1995;16:53–76. [Google Scholar]
• O'Connell MT, Lofquist DA. Changes to the American Community Survey between 2007 and 2008 and their potential effect on the estimates of aforementioned-sex couple households (Report) 2009 Retrieved from http://www.demography.gov/hhes/samesex/files/changes-to-acs-2007-to-2008.pdf.
• O'Connell MT, Lofquist DA, Simmons T, Lugaila TA. New estimates of aforementioned-sex couple households from the American Community Survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America; Dallas, TX. 2010. Apr, Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/world wide web/socdemo/hh-fam/SS_new-estimates.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Otis MD, Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Hamrin R. Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2006;23:81–99. [Google Scholar]
• Payne KK. U.S. families and households: Economic well-being. Bowling Green, OH: National Heart for Family unit & Spousal relationship Research; 2011. (NCFMR Family unit Profiles, No. FP-11-01) Retrieved from https://world wide web.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/higher-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-eleven-01.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Payne KK. Demographic profile of same-sex activity couple households with minor children, 2012. Bowling Green, OH: National Heart for Family & Union Research; 2014. (NCFMR Family unit Profiles, No. FP-fourteen-03) Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-14-03_DemoSSCoupleHH.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Phillips JA, Sweeney MM. Can differential exposure to chance factors explain recent racial and ethnic variation in marital disruption? Social Scientific discipline Research. 2006;35:409–434. [Google Scholar]
• Rosenfeld MJ. Couple longevity in the era of same-sex activity wedlock in the U.S. Journal of Spousal relationship and Family. 2014;76:905–918. [Google Scholar]
• Rosenfeld MJ, Kim BS. The independence of immature adults and the rising of interracial and same-sex unions. American Sociological Review. 2005;70:541–562. [Google Scholar]
• Ross H, Gask K, Berrington A. Civil partnerships five years on. Population Trends. 2011;145:172–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schwartz CR. Pathways to educational homogamy in marital and cohabiting unions. Demography. 2010;47:735–753. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schwartz CR, Graf NL. Assortative mating amid aforementioned-sex and dissimilar-sex couples in the United States, 1990–2000. Demographic Research. 2009;21(commodity 28):843–878. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2009.21.28. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Steenhof L, Harmsen C. Same-sexual practice couples in kingdom of the netherlands. In: Digoix One thousand, Festy P, editors. Same-sex couples, same-sexual activity partnerships & homosexual marriages. A focus on cross-national differentials. INED; 2004. pp. 233–243. Documents de travail No. 124. Retrieved from https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/19410/124.fr.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Teachman JD. Stability beyond cohorts in divorce take a chance factors. Census. 2002;39:331–351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Trandafir M. The issue of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex wedlock: Evidence from the Netherlands. Census. 2014;51:317–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• U.S. Census Bureau. Characteristics of same-sex activity couple households [Information file] Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008. Retrieved from http://www.demography.gov/hhes/samesex/data/acs.html. [Google Scholar]
• U.Due south. Census Agency. Characteristics of same-sex couple households [Data file] Washington, DC: U.S. Demography Agency; 2013. Retrieved from http://www.demography.gov/hhes/samesex/ [Google Scholar]
• Williams South. Child poverty in the United States, 2010. Bowling Green, OH: National Eye for Family & Matrimony Research; 2012. NCFMR Family Profiles, No. FP-12-17. Retrieved from https://world wide web.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-12-17.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Williams S. Public assistance participation among U.S. children in poverty, 2010. Bowling Dark-green, OH: National Center for Family unit & Marriage Research; 2013. NCFMR Family Profiles, No. FP-thirteen-02. Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-02.pdf. [Google Scholar]

rodriguezoloony.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095690/

Share this post