One of the most significant developments in the debate about same-sex marriage is that it is gradually moving from abstract discussions about philosophy and civil rights to concrete debates about evidence and experience. As more countries and states recognize gay marriage, we learn more and more about its effects and the characteristics of the families seeking it.
Some opponents of gay marriage, like the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMAPP) in a report two years ago, have argued that few gays are even interested in marriage where it's available to them. Presumably, this observation is meant to undermine the claims of SSM supporters that marriage is really needed by gay families. It also supports the notion that it's not worth running even the small risk entailed in changing marriage for the benefit of a tiny minority of a tiny minority. SSM supporters, including me, responded that the IMAPP report wasn't really an argument against gay marriage, but mostly did not challenge the underlying finding that at least initially the uptake rate had been low.
Now the UCLA's Williams Institute, which supports same-sex marriage, has taken another look at the numbers. In a new report studying the recognition of domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriages across the country, the report challenges the conclusions of the skeptics that gays don't really care about marriage. The report concludes:
Data from the states that have already extended legal recognition to same-sex couples support the conclusion that same-sex couples are entering into these relationships at significant rates, with over 40% of same-sex couples already in legally recognized relationships in those states. While the proportion of legally recognized same-sex couples is still substantially smaller than the percentage of different-sex couples who are married, we predict that the rates will reach parity within the next twenty years.
In addition, the data show that same-sex couples respond to changes in how states define their relationships. For example, average monthly registrations increased in the District of Columbia when the domestic partnership rights were increased. In New Jersey, the average number of monthly civil unions was higher than the number of domestic partnerships once the expanded civil union status was made available. Conversely, when California changed domestic partnership to a status much closer to that of marriage, a large number of couples chose to dissolve their official partnerships.
The data from these states also demonstrate that same-sex couples prefer marriage over civil unions or domestic partnerships. While 37% of same-sex couples married during the first year that marriage was made available to them in Massachusetts, only 12% of same-sex couples have entered civil unions and 10% have entered domestic partnerships during the first year in which states have offered these forms of recognition. Beyond having the legal rights and obligations associated with marriage, the name "marriage" matters for same-sex couples. As a result, it may be that in states that have recently extended non-marital forms of recognition to same-sex couples, some couples are waiting to register in the hope that marriage will someday become available or recognized in their state.
What accounts for the different conclusions of the IMAPP report and the Williams Institute study? For one thing, we now have a couple more years of experience with gay marriages and partnerships to draw from. Also, while IMAPP compared the numbers of gays getting married to estimates of the total number of gays in the jurisdiction, the Williams Institute compares the number of gays getting married (or entering other formal legal relationships) to the number of same-sex couple households in the jurisdiction.
The report is full of interesting information, charts, and graphs about the characteristics of same-sex couples as compared to opposite-sex couples, including age and prior marital history, the predominance of lesbian couples among those getting married, and the similar dissolution rates for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
What they do to each other is disgusting... and very unhealthy.
Have you seen what most hetero couples look like? What they do to each other is disgusting. I certainly wouldn't want to see it. But I wouldn't support a ban on ugly or fat people getting married.
Hunh? What do lesbians do to each other that is more unhealthy than what heterosexual couples do? (I assume that you're trying to use health as an argument to oppose SSM, but that argument would appear to prefer female SSM over traditional marriage.)
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
[Daniel Chapman had the right response above].
I think you're covering different data sets. There is a distinct and significant difference between how many gay men or lesbian women (or bisexuals of either gender) care about gay marriage, and how many actually would get married. I've conversed with a lot of people that care about the subject, but wouldn't pick that particular path themselves any time soon; that includes people who want gay marriages to be legally recognized and would act differently after such, but aren't even in a long-term relationship. The only part of this survey which is the paper's prediction that gay marriage will reach parity with heterosexual marriage sometime in the future, and from what I can tell, they're predicting the long shot.
That's not unusual. There are a lot of gun bloggers that care about, say, Lautenberg or FOPA86, but won't be getting a order of protection against them or a machine gun any time particularly soon after the law changes.
It shouldn't be a surprising matter. The bans on gay marriage don't (and, Constitutionally, can not) prohibit cohabitation, gay marriage ceremonies, contracts regarding limitations on sexual partners, or a half-dozen other things. The latter options tend to be rarer than even demographics would suggest, though.
That's not to say this is somehow "bad" or "good", or an indicator of what policy should be, just that it's the experience I've seen, and a common miscomunication between the two parties.
Is it really appropriate to compare the marriage rates among Group A and B cohabitants ("See, Group B cohabitants marry at twice the rate of Group A cohabitants!!") if we're trying to decide (for whatever reason) whether Group A or Group B is more interested in marrying? Why doesn't it make more sense to compare the marriage rates for Group A members as a whole to that of Group B members as a whole? If 99% of Group X members were adamantly single, with the other 1% marrying for life, I'd assume most people would agree that Group X as a whole was not the marrying kind.
I have no idea what the numbers would be for gay and straight Americans, but maybe Prof. Carpenter does. I also don't think the result should make any difference in the debate over SSM, but, hey, Carpenter brought the argument up and it seemed a little illogical to me.
But, no, he was pushing the same tired bullshit that folks on his side have always pushed.
I agree.
For that matter, what does it matter what the percentage of workers who want Social Security (or health care, or the draft, or mortgage insurance or whatever) is? It's either a good thing, or it's not.
As a practical matter in the US, numbers matter.
So those studies is just a propaganda.
Considering the survey only cares about those who self-identify as homosexual and the number of people who falsely self-identify as homosexual is probably negligible, I think your concern is overstated.
There might be a sample bias because the people who self-identify as homosexual might be more likely to also want a SSM, but that's a different complaint.
This is certainly what my partner and I have been holding out for. After 20 years together, it didn't seem to be worth the effort to get a piece of paper that would not be recognized or mean much outside the state/country it was issued in. Only in the last 2-months has there been any significant momentum.
With multiple states now either offering or recognizing marriage we decided the time was ripe for us. Our current plan is a 10-day vacation/elopment/honeymoon to several national parks in Oregon and northern California this October.
I might be wrong, but it has seemed to me lately that posts about gay marriage or DADT generate much less response here at the VC. It seems as if most people have now agreed upon on these subjects, and do not see them at all noteworthy. If that is the case, I think that is indeed a good thing, for liberty and the pursuit of happiness to each at is own. (...now, if it were polar bears we were talking about...)
Also there's been no real news. Wait until there's a pending court case or piece of legislation, and people will care again.
My partner and I have been together for 11 years. Our 10-year anniversary for our (unofficial) commitment ceremony is Oct 2009. If marriage in my home state of California is still legal after this next election, we will be traveling to California to renew our vows and be legally married.
We have no intention nor desire to return to Florida and sue for recognition. When the various elements of our lives align in the right way, we do intend on relocating to a state that recognizes our relationship.
Yup, it's all part of the Homo Agenda.
We just had our annual convocation, and we amended the Agenda to include removing 'apple pie' as the symbol of America, and replace it with Sacher Torte. What better way to destroy traditional American values?
Oh Clayton it is not. Its a part of San Francisco culture. Pointing there for your mean would be like pointing to Las Vegas about the norms of gambling. Shoot its a tourist destination for people from around the country and world and as such not a representation of 'gay culture' but a distillation of those interested in such things out of a population of millions.
Was at the Seattle Pridefest and Canadian gentleman standing next to me watched for a while and complained that the parade wasn't very entertaining compared to the 'ones down south' and walked away.
As to the study, it just confirms what anyone with gay friends know - gay people naturally marry just like everyone else. Some states license contracts, some don't, but the people still couple up regardless.
Its always the underlying irony - they complain if they're single and then they complain if they don't want to be single. No pleasing some people it seems.
Right.
But of course, that isn't the issue. The issue is the Clayton really wants everyone to hate gays as much as he does, facts be damned. This way, if a gay couple moves in next to you, you will shun them because of the fear he has sown. Good work, Christian soldier!
And that Clayton is 'fact driven' is a known - I'm sure he can think of 4 or 5 other reasons why SF would be different from the norm in this area other than merely the concentration of gay men but he just doesn't bother - he has the answer he wants regardless of any other possible contingency.
SF is an anomaly because of its place in history, not the norm.
Oh and I forgot to add the link to the paper itself.