research paper same sex marriage

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Same-sex marriage, majority of u.s. catholics express favorable view of pope francis.

Most say Francis represents change in the church. And many say the church should allow priests to marry and let Catholics use birth control.

Across Asia, views of same-sex marriage vary widely

A median of 49% of people in 12 places in Asia say they at least somewhat favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

How people around the world view same-sex marriage

Among the 32 places surveyed, support for legal same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, where 92% of adults favor it, and lowest in Nigeria, where only 2% back it.

Public Has Mixed Views on the Modern American Family

Americans are more pessimistic than optimistic about the institution of marriage and the family. At the same time, the public is fairly accepting of diverse family arrangements, though some are seen as more acceptable than others.

The Modern American Family

Key trends in marriage and family life in the United States.

In places where same-sex marriages are legal, how many married same-sex couples are there?

In 24 places where detailed statistics are available, same-sex marriages in recent years have ranged from less than 1% to 3.4% of all marriages.

About six-in-ten Americans say legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society

37% of Americans have a negative view of the impact of same-sex marriage being legal, with 19% saying it is very bad for society.

How the political typology groups compare

Pew Research Center’s political typology sorts Americans into cohesive, like-minded groups based on their values, beliefs, and views about politics and the political system. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.

On some demographic measures, people in same-sex marriages differ from those in opposite-sex marriages

Adults – particularly men – who are in same-sex marriages have a somewhat different demographic profile from adults in opposite-sex marriages.

How Catholics around the world see same-sex marriage, homosexuality

Pope Francis made news recently by voicing his support for same-sex civil unions. The statement struck observers as a shift for the Vatican.

Refine Your Results

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation College of Health and Human Sciences, San José State University, San José, California, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Political Science and Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America

Affiliation Educational, Counseling and School Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America

Affiliation Center for Human Sexuality Studies, Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, California, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Nursing & Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

• Laurie A. Drabble, 
• Angie R. Wootton, 
• Cindy B. Veldhuis, 
• Ellen D. B. Riggle, 
• Sharon S. Rostosky, 
• Pamela J. Lannutti, 
• Kimberly F. Balsam, 
• Tonda L. Hughes

• Published: May 6, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125
• Reader Comments

A growing body of literature provides important insights into the meaning and impact of the right to marry a same-sex partner among sexual minority people. We conducted a scoping review to 1) identify and describe the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults, and 2) explore sexual minority women (SMW) perceptions of equal marriage rights and whether psychosocial impacts differ by sex. Using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework we reviewed peer-reviewed English-language publications from 2000 through 2019. We searched six databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, JSTOR, and Sociological Abstracts) to identify English language, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting findings from empirical studies with an explicit focus on the experiences and perceived impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults. We found 59 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Studies identified positive psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage (e.g., increased social acceptance, reduced stigma) across individual, interpersonal (dyad, family), community (sexual minority), and broader societal levels. Studies also found that, despite equal marriage rights, sexual minority stigma persists across these levels. Only a few studies examined differences by sex, and findings were mixed. Research to date has several limitations; for example, it disproportionately represents samples from the U.S. and White populations, and rarely examines differences by sexual or gender identity or other demographic characteristics. There is a need for additional research on the impact of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage on the health and well-being of diverse sexual minorities across the globe.

Citation: Drabble LA, Wootton AR, Veldhuis CB, Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, Lannutti PJ, et al. (2021) Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0249125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125

Editor: Peter A. Newman, University of Toronto, CANADA

Received: September 9, 2020; Accepted: March 11, 2021; Published: May 6, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Drabble et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Dr. Drabble and Dr. Trocki are supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R03MD011481 ( https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/ ). Dr. Veldhuis’ participation in this research was made possible through an NIH/NIAAA Ruth Kirschstein Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (F32AA025816; PI C. Veldhuis). Dr. Hughes is funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA0013328, https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/ ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Legalization of same-sex marriage represents one important step toward advancing equal rights for sexual and gender minorities. Over the past two decades same-sex marriage has become legally recognized in multiple countries around the world. Between 2003 and mid-2015, same-sex couples in the United States (U.S.) gained the right to marry in 37 of 50 states. This right was extended to all 50 states in June 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples in all U.S. states had equal marriage rights. As of October 2019, same-sex couples had the right to marry in 30 countries and territories around the world [ 1 ].

National laws or policies that extend equal marriage rights to same-sex couples signal a reduction in structural stigma and have the potential to positively impact the health and well-being of sexual minorities. Structural stigma refers to norms and policies on societal, institutional and cultural levels that negatively impact the opportunities, access, and well-being of a particular group [ 2 ]. Forms of structural stigma that affect sexual minorities—such as restrictions on same-sex marriage—reflect and reinforce the social stigma against non-heterosexual people that occurs at individual, interpersonal, and community levels [ 3 ]. According to Hatzenbuehler and colleagues, structural stigma is an under-recognized contributor to health disparities among stigmatized populations [ 4 – 6 ], and reductions in structural stigma can improve health outcomes among sexual minorities [ 7 , 8 ].

Marriage is a fundamental institution across societies and access to the right to marry can reduce sexual-minority stigma by integrating sexual minority people more fully into society [ 9 ]. Same-sex marriage also provides access to a wide range of tangible benefits and social opportunities associated with marriage [ 9 , 10 ]. Despite the benefits of marriage rights, sexual minorities continue to experience stigma-related stressors, such as rejection from family or community, and discrimination in employment and other life spheres [ 11 ]. In addition, reactions to same-sex marriage appear to differ among sexual minorities and range from positive to ambivalent [ 11 – 13 ]. Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples remedies only one form of structural stigma. Although legalization of same-sex marriage represents a positive shift in the social and political landscape, the negative impact of social stigma may persist over time. For example, a recent Dutch study found that despite 20 years of equal marriage rights, sexual minority adolescents continue to show higher rates of substance use and lower levels of well-being than their heterosexual peers [ 14 ]. This study underscores the importance of understanding the complex impact of stigma at the structural, community, interpersonal, and individual levels.

Impact on sexual minority health

A growing body of literature, using different methods from diverse countries where same-sex marriage has been debated or adopted, provides important insights into the impact of equal marriage rights on the health and well-being of sexual minority individuals. Research to date has consistently found that legal recognition of same-sex marriage has a positive impact on health outcomes among sexual and gender minority populations [ 15 – 20 ]. Studies in the U.S. have found evidence of reduced psychological distress and improved self-reported health among sexual minorities living in states with equal marriage rights compared to those living in states without such rights [ 5 , 21 – 23 ]. One state-specific study also found improved health outcomes for sexual minority men after legalization of same-sex marriage [ 24 ]. Furthermore, sexual minorities living in states that adopted, or were voting on, legislation restricting marriage recognition to different-sex couples reported higher rates of alcohol use disorders and psychological distress compared to those living in states without such restrictions [ 5 , 25 – 31 ]. Consistent with research in the U.S., findings from research in Australia on marriage restriction voting, found that sexual minorities living in jurisdictions where a majority of residents voted in support of same-sex marriage reported better overall health, mental health, and life satisfaction than sexual minorities in locales that did not support same-sex marriage rights [ 32 ].

Although existing literature reviews have documented positive impacts of equal marriage rights on physical and mental health outcomes among sexual minority individuals [ 15 – 20 ], to our knowledge no reviews have conducted a nuanced exploration of the individual, interpersonal, and community impacts of legalized same-sex marriage. An emerging body of quantitative and qualitative literature affords a timely opportunity to examine a wide range of psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights. Understanding these impacts is important to guide and interpret future research about the potential protective health effects of same-sex marriage.

Potential differences between SMW and SMM

Given the dearth of research focusing on the health and well-being of sexual minority women (SMW), especially compared to the sizable body of research on sexual minority men (SMM) [ 33 , 34 ], there is a need to explore whether the emerging literature on same-sex marriage provides insights about potential differences in psychosocial impacts between SMW and SMM. Recent research underscores the importance of considering SMW’s perspectives and experiences related to same-sex marriage. For example, gendered social norms play out differently for women and men in same-sex and different-sex marriages, and interpersonal dynamics and behaviors, including those related to coping with stress, are influenced by gender socialization [ 35 ]. However, there is little research about how societal-level gender norms and gendered social constructions of marriage may be reflected in SMW’s perceptions of same-sex marriage. Structural sexism (e.g., gendered power and resource inequality at societal and institutional levels) differentially impacts women’s and men’s health [ 36 ], and may also contribute to sex differences in experiences and impacts of same-sex marriage. For example, research from the U.S. suggests that same-sex marriage rights may improve health outcomes and access to healthcare for SMM, but evidence is less robust for SMW [ 37 – 39 ]. Differences in health outcomes appear to be at least partially explained by lower socioeconomic status (income, employment status, perceived financial strain) among SMW compared to SMM [ 40 ]. Further, other psychosocial factors may contribute to differential experiences of legalized same-sex marriage. For example, a study of older sexual minority adults in states with equal marriage rights found that married SMW experienced more LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) microaggressions than single SMW, but no differences by relationship status were noted among SMM [ 41 ]. Mean number of microaggressions experienced by SMW in partnered unmarried relationships fell between, but were not significantly different from, that of married and single SMW.

Theoretical framework

Social-ecological and stigma theoretical perspectives were used as the framework for organizing literature in this review (See Fig 1 ). Stigma occurs and is experienced by sexual minorities at individual, interpersonal, and structural levels, which mirror the levels of focus within the social-ecological framework [ 6 , 42 ]. Consequently, changes such as extending equal marriage rights to same-sex couples may influence sexual minorities’ experiences of stigma across all of these levels [ 43 ]. Gaining access to the institution of marriage is distinct from marital status (or being married) and likely impacts sexual minority adults across individual, interpersonal, and community contexts [ 44 ], regardless of relationship status.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.g001

From a social-ecological perspective, individual and interpersonal processes can amplify or weaken the impact of structural level policies, such as equal marriage rights, on sexual minority individuals’ health and well-being [ 43 , 45 , 46 ]. For example, on an individual level, experiences and perceptions of equal marriage rights may influence stigma-related processes such as internalized heterosexism, comfort with disclosure, and centrality of sexual identity [ 47 ]. Interpersonal and community level interactions may trigger stigma-related processes such as prejudice concerns, vigilance, or mistrust. Such processes may in turn, influence the impact of social policy change on sexual minority stress and well-being [ 48 – 50 ].

The impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority individuals may also be influenced by other social and political factors such as state- or regional-level social climate [ 50 – 52 ], or inconsistency among other policy protections against discrimination (e.g., in housing or public accommodations) [ 11 , 50 ]. Sociopolitical uncertainty may continue long after the right to marry is extended to same-sex couples [ 53 , 54 ]. Monk and Ogolsky [ 44 ] define political uncertainty as a state of “having doubts about legal recognition bestowed on individuals and families by outside systems; being unsure about social acceptance of marginalized relationships; being unsure about how ‘traditional’ social norms and roles pertain to marginalized relationships or how alternative scripts might unfold” (p. 2).

Current study

The overall aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize existing literature on psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults. Specific objectives were to: 1) identify and describe the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights on sexual minority adults; and 2) explore SMW-specific perceptions of equal marriage rights and whether psychosocial impacts differ for SMM and SMW.

Study design

We used a scoping review approach, as it is well-suited for aims designed to provide a descriptive overview of a large and diverse body of literature [ 55 ]. Scoping reviews have become a widely used approach for synthesizing research evidence, particularly in health-related fields [ 55 ]. Scoping reviews summarize the range of research, identify key characteristics or factors related to concepts, and identify knowledge gaps in particular areas of study [ 56 , 57 ]. By contrast, systematic reviews are more narrowly focused on creating a critically appraised synthesized answer to a particular question pertinent to clinical practice or policy making [ 57 ]. We aimed to characterize and summarize research related to psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage, including potential gaps in research specific to SMW. Following Arksey and O’Malley [ 56 ], the review was conducted using the following steps: 1) identifying the research question, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) selecting studies, 4) charting the data, and 5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. Because this is a scoping review, it was not registered with PROSPERO, an international registry for systematic reviews.

Selection method

The authors used standard procedures for conducting scoping reviews, including following PRISMA guidelines [ 58 ]. Articles that report findings from empirical studies with an explicit focus on the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage on sexual minority adults are included in this review. All database searches were limited to studies in English language journals published from 2000 through 2019 (our most recent search was executed in June 2020). This time frame reflects the two decades since laws regarding same-sex marriage began to change in various countries or jurisdictions within countries. Literature review articles and commentaries were excluded. To ensure that sources had been vetted for scientific quality by experts, only articles in peer-reviewed journals were included; books and research in the grey literature (e.g., theses, dissertations, and reports) were excluded. There was no restriction on study location. A librarian searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, JSTOR, and Sociological Abstracts databases using combinations of key search terms. Following is an example of the search terms used in CINAHL database searches: ((TI "marriage recognition" OR AB "marriage recognition") OR (TI marriage OR AB marriage) OR (TI same-sex OR AB same-sex) OR (TI "same sex" OR AB "same sex")) AND ((TI LGBT OR AB LGBT) OR (TI gay OR AB gay) OR (TI lesbian OR AB lesbian) OR (TI bisexual OR AB bisexual) OR (TI transgender OR AB transgender) OR (TI Obergefell OR AB Obergefell) OR (TI "sexual minorities" OR AB "sexual minorities))

Articles were selected in two stages of review. In stage one, the first author and librarian independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion or exclusion using eligibility criteria. We excluded articles focused solely on the impact of relationship status on health outcomes, satisfaction or dynamics within marriage relationships, or the process of getting married (e.g., choices of who to invite, type of ceremony), or other topics that did not pertain directly to the research aims. For example, a study about the impact of getting married that also included themes pertaining to the impact or meaning of equal marriage rights was included in the full review. The first author and a librarian met to review and resolve differences and, in cases where relevance was ambiguous, articles underwent a full-text review (in stage 2). Table 1 summarizes exclusion categories used in the title and abstract reviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.t001

In stage two, articles not excluded in stage one were retrieved for full-text review. Each article was independently reviewed by two authors to assess study relevance. Discrepancies related to inclusion were few (less than 10%) and resolved through discussion and consensus-building among the first four authors. This process resulted in an analytic sample of 59 articles (see Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.g002

Table 2 provides an overview of characteristics of the studies included in this scoping review. Most were qualitative and most aggregated SMW and SMM in analyses. Only 14 studies explored differences in impact for SMW and SMM, or separately examined the specific perceptions and experiences of SMW. Although search terms were inclusive of transgender individuals, samples in the studies we reviewed rarely included or focused explicitly on experiences of transgender or gender nonbinary identified individuals. In studies that explicitly included transgender and nonbinary individuals, sample sizes were rarely large enough to permit examination of differences based on gender identity (e.g., survey samples with 2–3% representation of nonbinary or transgender individuals) [ 44 , 59 – 63 ]. Other studies recruiting sexual minorities may have included transgender and nonbinary individuals (who also identified as sexual minorities), but did not assess gender identity. Among studies in which participant race/ethnicity was reported, most included samples that were majority White.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.t002

Studies of the impact of legalized marriage on physical health were not excluded in the original search parameters; however, physical health has been addressed in prior reviews [ 15 – 20 ]. Further, because our research questions focused on psychosocial factors, we excluded studies on physical health unless they also addressed individual, interpersonal, or community psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage legalization. Studies that focused on physical health impacts or access to health insurance were used only in the introduction.

Civil union was not explicitly included as a search parameter, but articles focusing on civil unions were captured in our search. Although civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, they often confer similar substantive legal rights. We included articles about civil union that explicitly pertained to our research question, such as a study that examined perceived stigma and discrimination before and after implementation of civil union legislation in one U.S. state [ 64 ], and excluded articles that did not (e.g., a study of relationship quality or longevity among same-sex couples in civil unions) [ 65 ].

A majority of the studies were conducted in the U.S. Of the 43 U.S. studies, 20 sampled from a single state, 10 included participants from multiple states, 12 used a national sample, and one had no human subjects (secondary analysis of legal cases). Of those sampling a single state, all focused on the impact of changes (or proposed changes) in same-sex marriage policy: 10 focused on Massachusetts (the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage), two focused on Iowa, two on Vermont, and two on California. One article each included study participants from Nebraska, Oregon, Illinois, and a small (unnamed) non-metropolitan town in the Midwest.

Analysis method

We created a data extraction form to ensure consistency across team members in extracting key study information and characteristics including study design (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method), location (e.g., country and/or region), sample (e.g., whether the study included or excluded SMW or SMM, assessed and reported race/ethnicity), and key results. Articles were also classified based on findings related to level of impact (e.g., individual, couple, family, community, or broader social attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals; see S1 Table ). A final category on significance/implications allowed reviewers to further identify and comment on major themes and relevance to the current review. Themes were then identified and organized using stigma and social-ecological frameworks.

Aim 1: Psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage rights

Individual level impacts..

Although most studies about the impact of equal marriage rights have been conducted with couples or individuals in committed or married relationships, 15 studies in this review included sexual minority adults across relationship statuses. In general, studies examining the impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minorities suggest that equal access to marriage has a positive impact on perceptions of social acceptance and social inclusion regardless of relationship status [ 47 , 63 , 66 , 67 ]. For example, Riggle and colleagues [ 47 ] examined perceptions of sexual minority individuals in the U.S. during the period in which same-sex couples had equal marriage rights in some, but not all, U.S. states. Sexual minorities who resided in states with equal marriage rights reported less identity concealment, vigilance, and isolation than their peers in states without equal marriage rights. Similarly, using data from the longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study in the U.S., Charlton and colleagues [ 68 ] examined potential positive impacts of equal marriage rights on sexual identity disclosure. They found that participants living in states with any form of legal recognition of same-sex relationships (inclusive of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships) were 30% more likely than those is states without legal recognition to consistently disclose a sexual minority identity across survey waves [ 68 ].

Researchers have documented ambivalence among sexual minority adults regarding the institution of marriage and whether same-sex marriage would impact other forms of structural or interpersonal stigma. Sexual minority participants in several studies expressed concern about continued interpersonal stigma based on sexual or gender identity, the limitations of marriage as a vehicle for providing benefits and protections for economically marginalized LGBTQ+ individuals, and the possibility that an increased focus on marriage would contribute to devaluing unmarried same-sex relationships [ 12 , 13 , 62 , 69 , 70 ]. Studies also documented concerns about marriage being inherently linked to heteronormative expectations and about assimilation to heterosexist cultural norms [ 60 , 69 , 71 ]. These concerns were summarized by Hull [ 69 ]: “The fact that LGBTQ respondents favor marriage more in principle (as a right) than in practice (as an actual social institution) suggests that marriage holds multiple meanings for them” (p. 1360).

Five studies explicitly examined racial/ethnic minority identities as a factor in individuals’ perceptions of same-sex marriage; one qualitative study focused exclusively on Black individuals in the U.S. [ 72 ] and the other four examined differences by race/ethnicity [ 64 , 66 , 67 , 73 ]. McGuffy [ 72 ] conducted in-depth interviews with 102 Black LGBT individuals about their perceptions of marriage as a civil rights issue before and after same-sex marriage was recognized nationally in the U.S. The study found that intersecting identities and experiences of discrimination related to racism, homophobia, and transphobia influenced personal views of marriage. For example, although most participants were supportive of equal marriage rights as a public good, many felt that the emphasis on marriage in social movement efforts overlooked other important issues, such as racism, economic injustice, and transgender marginalization.

The four other studies examining racial/ethnic differences in perceptions about whether equal marriage rights facilitated inclusion or reduced interpersonal stigma yielded mixed results. One found that residing in states with equal marriage rights was associated with greater feelings of acceptance among sexual minorities; however, White sexual minorities reported greater feelings of inclusion than participants of color [ 66 ]. By contrast, in a quasi-experiment in which SMW in a midwestern state were interviewed pre- or post- passage of civil union legislation, those interviewed after the legislation reported lower levels of stigma consciousness and perceived discrimination than those interviewed before the legislation; however, effects were stronger among SMW of color than among White SMW [ 64 ]. In a study of unmarried men in same-sex male couples, Hispanic/Latino men were more likely than non-Latino White participants to report perceived gains in social inclusion after equal marriage rights were extended to all U.S. states [ 67 ]. However, men who reported higher levels of minority stress (enacted and anticipated stigma as well as internalized homophobia) were less likely to show improvement in perceptions of social inclusion. Lee [ 73 ], using data from a national Social Justice Sexuality Project survey, found no statistical differences in Black, White and Latinx sexual minorities’ perceptions that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples had a moderate to major impact on their lives. In analyses restricted to Black participants, individuals with higher level of sexual minority identity salience reported significantly higher importance of equal marriage rights. Lee suggests that same-sex marriage was perceived by many study participants as a tool to gain greater acceptance in the Black community because being married is a valued social status.

Couple level impacts.

We identified 15 studies that focused on couples as the unit of analysis. Findings from studies of the extension of equal marriage rights in U.S. states suggest positive impacts among same-sex couples, including access to financial and legal benefits as well as interpersonal validation, such as perceptions of being viewed as a “real” couple and increased social inclusion [ 12 , 59 , 63 , 74 , 75 ]. Furthermore, couples in several studies described the potential positive impacts of legal recognition of their relationship on their ability to make joint decisions about life issues, such as having children and medical care [ 75 ]. Couples also described having a greater sense of security associated with financial (e.g., taxes, healthcare) and legal (e.g., hospital visitation) benefits and reduced stress in areas such as travel and immigration [ 75 ]. Collectively, these findings suggest that marriage rights were perceived to imbue individuals in same-sex relationships with a sense of greater security, stability, and safety due to the legal recognition and social legitimization of same-sex couples. Although equal marriage rights were perceived as an important milestone in obtaining civil rights and reducing institutional discrimination, concerns about and experiences of interpersonal stigma persisted [ 76 – 78 ]. The social context of legal same-sex marriage may create stress for couples who elect to not marry. For example, in a study of 27 committed, unmarried same-sex couples interviewed after the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obergefell, couples who chose not to marry described feeling that their relationships were less supported and perceived as less committed [ 79 ].

Reports from the CUPPLES study, a national longitudinal study of same-sex couples in the U.S. from 2001 to 2014, provided a unique opportunity to examine the impact of different forms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. In wave three of the study during 2013–2014, open-ended qualitative questions were added to explore how individuals in long-term committed partnerships perceived the extension of equal marriage rights in many U.S. states. Themes included awe about the historic achievement of a long-awaited civil rights goal, celebration and elation, and affirmation of minority sexual identity and relationships, but also fears of backlash against sexual minority rights [ 80 ]. Some individuals who divorced after institutionalization of the right to same-sex marriage reported shame, guilt, and disappointment—given that they and others had fought so hard for equal marriage rights [ 81 ].

Studies outside the U.S. have also found evidence of positive impacts of legal recognition of same-sex couple relationships (e.g., increased social recognition and social support), as well as potential concerns [ 82 – 86 ]. For example, in a study of couples from the first cohort of same-sex couples to legally marry in Canada, participants described marriage as providing them with language to describe their partner that was more socially understood and helping to decrease homophobic attitudes among the people around them [ 83 ]. Some couples said they could fully participate in society and that marriage normalized their lives and allowed them to “live more publicly.” Couples also discussed the safety, security, and increased commitment that came from marriage, and some felt that marriage opened up previously unavailable or unimagined opportunities, such as becoming parents. However, some participants noted that their marriage caused disjuncture in relationships with their family of origin, as marriage made the relationship feel too real to family members and made their sexual identities more publicly visible.

Family level impacts.

Seventeen studies examined the impact of equal marriage rights on sexual minority individuals’ or couples’ relationships with their families of origin. Although these studies predominately used cross-sectional survey designs, one longitudinal study included individuals in both different-sex and same-sex relationships before and after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended marriage rights to all states [ 44 ]. This study found that support from family members increased following national legalization of same-sex marriage [ 44 ]. A cross-sectional online survey of 556 individuals with same-sex partners in Massachusetts (the first U.S. state to extend equal marriage rights to same-sex couples), found that greater family support and acceptance of same-sex couples who married was associated with a stronger overall sense of social acceptance [ 66 ].

Other cross-sectional surveys found mixed perceptions of family support and feelings of social acceptance. For example, a study of 357 participants in long-term same-sex relationships found that perceived social support from family did not vary by state-level marriage rights or marital status [ 47 ]. However, living in a state with same-sex marriage rights was associated with feeling less isolated. The finding of no differences in perceived support might be partly explained by the fact that the sample included only couples in long-term relationships; older, long-term couples may rely less on support from their family of origin than younger couples [ 12 ].

In studies (n = 6) that included dyadic interviews with same-sex married couples [ 74 , 79 , 85 , 87 – 89 ], participants described a wide range of family members’ reactions to their marriage. These reactions, which emerged after same-sex marriage legalization, were typically described by couples as profoundly impactful. Couples who perceived increased family support and acceptance described these changes as triumphant [ 85 ], transformative [ 88 ], and validating [ 74 , 87 ]. Conversely, some same-sex couples reported feeling hurt and betrayed when familial reactions were negative or when reactions among family members were divided [ 85 , 87 , 89 ]. Findings from these and other studies suggest that if certain family members were accepting or rejecting prior to marriage, they tended to remain so after equal marriage rights and/or the couple’s marriage [ 61 , 74 , 90 , 91 ]. In some cases, family members were perceived as tolerating the same-sex relationship but disapproving of same-sex marriage [ 85 , 90 ].

Findings from studies of married sexual minority people suggest that family (especially parental) disapproval was a challenge in the decision to get married [ 92 ], possibly because disclosure of marriage plans by same-sex couples frequently disrupted family “privacy rules” and long-time patterns of sexual identity concealment within families or social networks [ 87 ]. In a few studies, same-sex partners perceived that their marriage gave their relationship more legitimacy in the eyes of some family members, leading to increased support and inclusion [ 61 , 66 , 89 – 91 ]. Further, findings from two studies suggested that participating in same-sex weddings gave family members the opportunity to demonstrate support and solidarity [ 87 , 93 ].

Two qualitative studies collected data from family members of same-sex couples. In one, heterosexual siblings (all of whom were in different-sex marriages) described a range of reactions to marriage equality—from support for equal marriage rights to disapproval [ 80 ]. The other study interviewed sexual minority migrants to sexual minority friendly countries in Europe who were married and/or raising children with a same-sex partner, and these migrant’s parents who lived in Central and Eastern European countries that prohibited same-sex marriage. Parents found it difficult to accept their adult child’s same-sex marriage, but the presence of grandchildren helped to facilitate acceptance [ 94 ].

Community level impacts.

Twelve studies in this review examined the community-level impacts of same-sex marriage. These studies focused on community level impacts from two perspectives: impacts of equal marriage rights on LGBTQ+ communities, and the impacts of equal marriage rights on LGBTQ+ individuals’ interactions with their local communities or extended social networks.

LGBTQ+ communities . A prominent theme among these studies was that marriage is beneficial to LGBTQ+ communities because it provides greater protection, recognition, and acceptance of sexual minorities, their families, and their relationships—even beyond the immediate impact on any individual and their relationship or marriage [ 12 , 62 , 89 , 95 ]. Despite these perceived benefits, studies have found that some sexual minority adults view marriage as potentially harmful to LGBTQ+ communities because of concerns about increased assimilation and mainstreaming of LGBTQ+ identities [ 12 , 50 , 62 ], stigmatizing unmarried relationships [ 62 ], and weakening of unique and valued strengths of LGBTQ+ culture [ 12 ]. For example, Bernstein, Harvey, and Naples [ 96 ] interviewed 52 Australian LGBTQ+ activists and legislators who worked alongside activists for equal marriage rights. These authors described the “assimilationist dilemma” faced by activists: a concern that gaining acceptance into the mainstream societal institution of marriage would lessen the salience of LGBTQ+ identity and ultimately diminish the richness and strength of LGBTQ+ communities. Another downside of the focus on marriage as a social movement goal was the concern about reinforcing negative heteronormative aspects of marriage rather than challenging them [ 95 ].

Four studies explicitly examined possible community level impacts of same-sex marriage. In a mixed-methods study with 115 LGBTQ+ individuals in Massachusetts, participants reported believing that increased acceptance and social inclusion as a result of equal marriage rights might lessen reliance on LGBTQ+-specific activism, events, activities, and venues for social support [ 13 ]. However, a majority of study participants (60%) reported participating in LGBTQ+-specific events, activities, or venues “regularly.” A few studies found evidence of concerns that the right to marry could result in marriage being more valued than other relationship configurations [ 12 , 62 , 79 ].

Local community contexts and extended social networks . Studies examining the impact of same-sex marriage on sexual minority individuals’ interactions with their extended social networks and in local community contexts yielded mixed results. In an interview study with 19 same-sex couples living in the Netherlands, Badgett [ 66 ] found that LGBTQ+ people experienced both direct and indirect increases in social inclusion in their communities and extended social networks as a result of equal marriage rights. For example, direct increases in social inclusion included people making supportive comments to the couple and attending their marriage ceremonies; examples of indirect increases included same-sex spouses being incorporated into family networks [ 66 ]. Other studies found mixed or no change in support for LGBTQ+ people and their relationships. Kennedy, Dalla, and Dreesman [ 61 ] collected survey data from 210 married LGBTQ+ individuals in midwestern U.S. states, half of whom were living in states with equal marriage rights at the time of data collection. Most participants did not perceive any change in support from their community/social network following legalization of same-sex marriage; other participants reported an increase or mixed support from friends and co-workers. Similarly, Wootton and colleagues interviewed 20 SMW from 15 U.S. states and found positive, neutral, and negative impacts of same-sex marriage on their interactions in work and community contexts [ 50 ]. Participants perceived increased positivity about LGBTQ+ issues and more accepting attitudes within their extended social networks and local communities, but also reported hearing negative comments about sexual minority people more frequently and experiencing continued sexual orientation-based discrimination and stigma [ 50 ]. Many SMW reported feeling safer and having more positive conversations after Obergefell, but also continued to have concerns about being out at work as a sexual minority person [ 50 ].

Two studies examined the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in U.S. states in which same-sex marriage restrictions were decided by voters through ballot measures. These studies documented mixed impacts on participants’ interactions with extended social networks and community. Maisel and Fingerhut [ 28 ] surveyed 354 sexual minority adults in California immediately before the vote to restrict recognition of marriage to one man and one woman in the state (Proposition 8) and found that about one-third experienced interactions with social network members that were positive, whereas just under one-third were negative, and the rest were either mixed or neutral. Overall, sexual minority people reported more support than conflict with extended social network members and heterosexual community members over the ballot measure, with friends providing the most support [ 28 ]. Social support and solidarity from extended social network members in the face of ballot measures to restrict marriage recognition were also reported in an interview study of 57 same-sex couples residing in one of seven U.S. states that had passed marriage restriction amendments in 2006 [ 97 ]. However, some LGBTQ+ people also experienced condemnation and avoidance in their extended social networks [ 97 ].

Societal level impacts.

Sixteen studies examined ways that same-sex marriage influenced societal attitudes about sexual minority individuals or contributed to additional shifts in policies protecting the rights of sexual minority individuals. Findings suggested that the right of same-sex couples to marry had a positive influence on the political and socio-cultural context of sexual minorities’ lives. For example, changes in laws may influence social attitudes or result in LGBTQ positive policy diffusion across states (jurisdictions). There is debate over whether legal changes, such as equal marriage rights, create or are simply reflective of changes in social attitudes toward a group or a social issue [ 98 ]. Flores and Barclay [ 98 ] theorize four different socio-political responses to changes in marriage laws: backlash, legitimacy, polarization, and consensus. Some scholars argue that changes in law are unlikely to impact social attitudes (consensus), while others argue that legal changes influence the political and social environment that shapes social attitudes. Possible effects range from decreased support for sexual minorities and attempts to rescind rights (backlash) to greater support for the rights of sexual minorities and possible future expansion of rights and protections (legitimacy).

Findings from research generally suggest a positive relationship between same-sex marriage and public support for the overall rights of sexual minorities (legitimacy), and mixed results related to changes in mass attitudes (consensus) [ 98 – 106 ]. For example, in a panel study in Iowa before and after a state Supreme Court ruling in favor of equal marriage rights, Kreitzer and colleagues found that the change in law modified registered voters’ views of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and that some respondents felt “pressure” to modify or increase their expressed support [ 102 ]. Similarly, Flores and Barclay [ 98 ] found that people in a state with equal marriage rights showed a greater reduction in anti-gay attitudes than people in a state without equal marriage rights. Studies based on data from European countries also found that more positive attitudes toward sexual minorities were associated with equal marriage rights; improvements in attitudes were not evident in countries without equal marriage rights [ 9 , 105 , 106 ].

There is some evidence to support the third possible socio-political response to changes in marriage laws in Flores and Barclay’s model: increased polarization of the general public’s attitudes toward sexual minorities. Perrin, Smith, and colleagues [ 107 ], using successive-independent samples study of conservatives, moderates, and progressives across the U.S. found no overall changes in opinions attitudes about sexual minorities immediately after the Supreme Court decision extending equal marriage rights to all same-sex couples in the U.S. However, analyses by subgroup found that those who were conservative expressed more prejudice toward gay men and lesbians, less support for same-sex marriage, and less support for LGB civil rights immediately after the decision. Similarly, drawing on data from approximately one million respondents in the U.S. who completed implicit and explicit measures of bias against gay men and lesbian women (Project Implicit), Ofosu and colleagues [ 100 ] found that implicit bias decreased sharply following Obergefell. However, changes in attitudes were moderated by state laws; respondents in states that already had equal marriage rights for same-sex couples demonstrated decreased bias whereas respondents in states that did not yet have equal marriage rights evidenced increased bias [ 100 ]. Using data from the World Values Survey (1989–2014) in European countries, Redman [ 103 ] found that equal marriage rights were associated with increases in positive opinions about sexual minorities, but that the increase was driven largely by those who already held positive views.

Little support has been found for the hypothesis that the extension of equal marriage rights would be followed by a backlash of sharp negative shifts in mass attitudes and public policy [ 98 , 108 , 109 ]. For example, a general population survey in one relatively conservative U.S. state (Nebraska) found public support for same-sex marriage was higher after the Supreme Court ruling than before, suggesting no backlash in public opinion [ 108 ]. Similarly, Bishin and colleagues [ 109 ], using both an online survey experiment and analysis of data from a U.S. public opinion poll (National Annenberg Election Studies) before and after three relevant policy events, found little change in public opinion in response to simulated or actual policy changes.

Although equal marriage rights confer parental recognition rights, there are still legal challenges and disparate rulings and interpretations about some family law issues [ 77 , 110 , 111 ]. For example, some states in the U.S. have treated the parental rights of same-sex couples differently than those of different-sex (presumed heterosexual) couples. Both members of a same-sex couple have traditionally not been automatically recognized as parents of a child born or adopted within the relationship. However, the presumptions of parenthood after same-sex marriage was legalized have forced states to treat both members of same-sex couples as parents irrespective of method of conception or adoption status [ 112 ]. Still, results from a cross-national study of laws, policies, and legal recognition of same-sex relationships suggests that parental rights are recognized in some jurisdictions but not others [ 111 ].

Aim 2: SMW-specific findings and differences by gender

A total of 13 studies included in this review conducted SMW-specific analyses or compared SMW and SMM’s perceptions and experiences of same-sex marriage and equal marriage rights. In studies that included only SMW [ 50 , 64 , 68 , 77 , 81 , 86 , 89 , 91 ], findings emphasized the importance of relational and interpersonal impacts of same-sex marriage. Examples include creating safety for sexual identity disclosure and visibility [ 68 , 81 ], providing legal protections in relation to partners and/or children [ 77 , 81 ], offering social validation [ 86 , 89 ], and reducing stigma in larger community contexts [ 50 , 64 ]. Relational themes centered on concerns and distress when experiencing rejection or absence of support from family members or extended social networks [ 50 , 81 , 86 , 89 , 91 ].

Two of the studies of SMW documented sexual identity and gender identity differences in interpersonal experiences associated with same-sex marriage [ 86 , 89 ]. Lannutti’s interview study of the experiences of 26 married or engaged SMW couples with different sexual identities (bisexual-lesbian couples) revealed how the right to marry made them feel more connected to LGBTQ+ communities through activism and being “counted” as a same-sex married couple. However, same-sex marriage made some bisexual women feel more invisible within LGBTQ+ communities [ 89 ]. Scott and Theron [ 86 ] found that married lesbian women and cisgender women partners of transmasculine individuals (i.e., masculine-identifying transgender individuals) faced different challenges as they navigated through gendered social expectations and made choices about conforming or rejecting heteronormativity.

Only five of the studies focusing on psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights explicitly examined potential differences by sex [ 28 , 66 , 73 , 76 , 95 ]. Some studies found perceptions of greater social inclusion [ 66 ], or feelings of ambivalence (simultaneously holding positive, negative, and critical perspectives about marriage as an institution) [ 95 ] that were similar among SMW and SMM. Maisel and Fingerhut’s study of consequences of a state-level campaign to restrict marriage rights [ 28 ] showed that SMW and SMM experienced similar negative impacts on personal well-being and interactions with extended social networks. However, Lee found that, compared with Black SMM, Black SMW perceived same-sex marriage to have a larger impact on their lives [ 73 ]. Other studies found that SMW were more likely than SMM to report positive perceptions of same-sex marriage, possibly because they are more likely than SMM to have children and to be concerned about parental protections [ 73 , 95 ]. SMW and SMM may be differentially impacted by interpersonal stigma despite equal marriage rights. For example, one study found that SMW experienced higher levels of distress than SMM when their relationships were not treated as equal to heterosexuals’ [ 76 ].

Overall, findings from this scoping review suggest that psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minorities are apparent at all levels of our social-ecological and stigma framework. Sexual minority-specific stigma occurs on multiple levels (e.g., individual, interpersonal, and structural simultaneously and changes in social policies have cascading effects on sexual minority individuals’ experiences at each level. Generally, equal marriage rights had a positive impact on perceptions of social acceptance and social inclusion for sexual minority individuals, couples, and the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. However, many studies described mixed, ambivalent, or complicated perceptions of same-sex marriage, as well as stigmatizing interactions that were unaffected or exacerbated by equal marriage rights.

Although research does not unequivocally suggest the presence of a backlash in public opinion after equal marriage rights, there has been an increase in laws and policies at the U.S. state and federal levels that explicitly allow for religious-belief-based denial of services to sexual minority individuals and same-sex couples. For example, by 2017, 12 states in the U.S. enacted laws permitting the denial of services (e.g., allowing government officials to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses, allowing magistrates to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and permitting adoption and child welfare agencies to refuse same-sex couples’ adoption or fostering children) based on religious beliefs [ 113 ]. Research has documented negative health and psychological outcomes among sexual minorities living in U.S. states with policies that permit denial of services to sexual or gender minorities [ 114 , 115 ] and in states that do not have legal protections against discrimination [ 38 , 116 , 117 ]. Additional research is needed to examine how changes in local or national laws impact the health and well-being of sexual and gender minorities—particularly over the long term.

Gaps & future research needs

Research is limited in terms of examining how same-sex marriage may differentially impact sexual minority individuals based on sex, gender identity, or race/ethnicity. Only 14 studies included in this review addressed the psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage among SMW. More research is needed to understand the unique experiences and psychosocial impact of same-sex marriage for SMW and SMM. Further, many study samples were largely homogenous and included an overwhelming majority of White participants. The few studies with substantial sample sizes of people of color, and that compared people of color to White people, found differences by race in perceived impact of same-sex marriage [ 64 , 67 , 73 ], demonstrating the need for additional work in this area.

There were also very few studies in this review that explored differences by sexual identity (e.g., monosexual vs. plurisexual), gender identity (e.g., transgender vs. cisgender), gender expression (e.g., masculine vs. feminine presentation), or differences based on sex/gender of participants’ partners. Although transgender and nonbinary individuals were included in eight studies, five provided only descriptive information and only three described any unique findings from transgender study participants. For example, McGuffey [ 72 ] found that transgender individuals who identified as heterosexual described same-sex marriage rights as less relevant than issues of gender identity and expression and Hull found that cisgender sexual minority men generally expressed more enthusiasm about marriage than both cisgender women and transgender individuals [ 69 ]. Transgender and nonbinary individuals who perceive positive impacts of equal marriage rights may still experience challenges in navigating heteronormative and cisnormative expectations [ 72 , 86 ]. Other qualitative studies documented concerns that LGBTQ+ advocacy efforts, once marriage rights were secured, might fail to address rights and protections for transgender and nonbinary individuals [ 62 , 69 ]. Future studies that include the voices of transgender and nonbinary individuals are needed to better understand perceptions across both sexual and gender identities [ 118 ].

There is limited research on immediate and extended family members’ perceptions of equal marriage rights. There is also a need for prospective studies that examine whether familial acceptance increases over time. Many studies did not account for differences in LGBTQ+ identity salience and connection to LGBTQ+ and other communities, which may influence differences in perceptions and reactions to same-sex marriage.

The majority of studies (43 of 59) we reviewed were conducted in the U.S. Eleven of these collected data after Obergefell (June 25, 2015). Only two used longitudinal research designs that included data collection before and after national same-sex marriage legalization [ 44 , 107 ]. The legal and social landscapes have changed since this time and there is a need for re-assessment of the impact of same-sex marriage over multiple future timepoints.

Limitations

Although this scoping review used a systematic approach and, to our knowledge, is novel in its focus on impact of equal marriage rights on sexual minorities’ personal lives, interpersonal relationships, and social/community contexts, we acknowledge several limitations. We did not conduct a search of grey literature (e.g., reports, policy literature, working papers) or books and, consequently, likely excluded some scholarly work aligned with our focus. Our inclusion criteria of only peer-reviewed studies may have led us to exclude dissertations that focus on emerging areas of research, such as differences by gender identity, sexual identity, or race and ethnicity. As with all scoping reviews, studies may have been missed because of the search strategy. For example, it is possible that relevant studies were indexed in databases not used in our review. We also restricted our review to English language literature, excluding potentially relevant studies published in other languages. Studies in other languages may provide useful insights from other countries where English is not widely used. Although we focused exclusively on empirical studies, we did not assess the quality of the studies. Findings of the review are also limited by the collective body of research questions, designs, and analyses that have been pursued. For example, as noted above, few studies explored psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage among SMW or explored differences by sex; consequently we were limited in our ability to address our second research aim.

This scoping review identified and described psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults and explored potential SMW-specific experiences and differences by sex. Our results highlight four points. First, equal marriage rights are associated with a wide range of positive impacts on the psychological and social well-being of sexual minority adults. Second, the potential positive impacts of equal marriage rights are amplified or weakened by the presence or absence of stigma in interpersonal interactions and in the larger political and social environment. Third, although there is a growing body of global research on the impact of same-sex marriage, most studies have been conducted in the U.S. Cross-cultural studies can improve understanding of individual, interpersonal, and community level impacts of same-sex marriage in different cultural contexts. Fourth, given indications of differences between SMW and SMM in perceived impact of same-sex marriage, there is a need for research that examines the specific perspectives of SMW and that explores possible differences in perspectives and experiences by sex. Research is also needed to understand differences based on race/ethnicity, gender identity, and age. The right of same-sex couples to marry does not merely address the concerns of sexual minorities, it aims to right a far bigger wrong: the exclusion of some individuals from one of the most important institutions in social life.

Supporting information

S1 table. articles included in scoping review on the psychosocial impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s001

S1 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s002

S1 Text. Definitions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s003

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Karen F. Trocki for providing input during the initial conceptualization of this project. Our thanks to Carol A. Pearce, MLIS, who helped with finding records, removing duplicates, title and abstract review, and data management.

• 1. Pew Research Center. Same-sex marriage around the world. Fact Sheet [Internet]. 2019; (Oct 28). Available from: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/gay-marriage-around-the-world/ .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. Herek GM. Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In: Hope DA, Editor. Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 65–111.
• 10. Lannutti PJ. Experiencing same-sex marriage: Individual, couples, and social networks. New York: Peter Lang; 2014.
• 35. Umberson D, Kroeger RA. Gender, marriage, and health for same-sex and different-sex couples: The future keeps arriving. In: McHale SM, King V, Van Hook J, Booth A, editors. Gender and Couple Relationships. National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol 6. Switzerland: Springer International; 2016. p. 189–213.
• 37. Carpenter C, Eppink ST, Gonzales Jr G, McKay T. Effects of Access to Legal Same-Sex Marriage on Marriage and Health: Evidence from BRFSS. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018. Contract No.: No. w24651.
• 113. Movement Advancement Project. Equality Maps: Religious Exemption Laws 2020 [Available from: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/religious_exemption_laws .

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Same-sex marriage: Research roundup

Selection of academic scholarship on the dynamics of the same-sex marriage debate in the public square and within lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by John Wihbey, The Journalist's Resource June 26, 2013

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/race-and-gender/research-studies-same-sex-marriage/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and violates the principle of equal protection under the law. The decision opens the door for same-sex couples to receive federal benefits. As the Pew Research Center has documented through various surveys, societal opinion on the issue has begun to swing dramatically in favor of accepting gay couples over the past decade. Indeed, Pew found in a report released June 2013 that “nearly three-quarters of Americans — 72% — say that legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ‘inevitable.’ This includes 85% of gay marriage supporters, as well as 59% of its opponents.”

In the majority opinion in the case, United States v. Windsor , Justice Kennedy wrote:

DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Since the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, the states of Washington, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Iowa, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex marriage; many other states are poised to allow it or the less controversial “civil union” designation in the near future. California’s Proposition 8, a ballot question that banned same-sex marriage, passed in 2008 but was subsequently overturned by a U.S. District Court judge and is on hold until the Supreme Court issues its ruling.

Supporters of legalizing same-sex marriage argue that the institution is a civil institution that comes with a host of legal privileges, including shared assets, benefits and citizenship. To deny these rights to American citizens on the basis of their sexual preferences, they assert, is a violation of rights automatically granted to heterosexual couples. Opponents of same-sex marriage view it as sacrilegious, debasing religious beliefs and the laws of nature, and at odds with the primary marriage function of raising children.

Academic scholarship and research have much to say on the dynamics of the same-sex marriage debate in the public square and within lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities. The following are recent scholarly research papers and studies published from 2010 to April 2013.

“The Future Impact of Same-Sex Marriage: More Questions than Answers” Hunter, Nan D. Georgetown Law Journal , 2012, Vol. 100, 1855-1879.

Abstract: “The author identifies three questions likely to arise in the relatively near future that will flow, directly or indirectly, from same-sex marriage: First, we may see an increasing uptake by different-sex couples of marriage equivalent and marriage alternative statuses (e.g., domestic partnerships) that have grown out of LGBT rights efforts. If present demographic trends continue, the group of different-sex couples most likely to seek access to these new statuses will be persons middle-aged or older. Second, federal recognition of same-sex marriage, which will occur if the Defense of Marriage Act is invalidated or repealed, could significantly increase the number of same-sex couples who marry. The end of DOMA is also likely to further complicate the law of interstate recognition, as more gay couples have their marriages recognized for federal law purposes, such as tax, but not under state laws that regulate divorce, custody and property division… Lastly, the author questions whether the issue of ‘accidental procreation’ that has become a theme in court decisions related to same-sex marriage may migrate to marriage law more generally.”

“Contact with Gays and Lesbians and Same-Sex Marriage Support: The Moderating Role of Social Context” Merino, Stephen M. Social Science Research , March 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.02.004.

Abstract: “Empirical research on the contact hypothesis has paid inadequate attention to the broader social and normative context in which contact occurs. Using data from the nationally representative Portraits of American Life Study, I test whether individuals’ core networks moderate the effect of personal contact with gays and lesbians on same-sex marriage attitudes. OLS regression results demonstrate that, though contact is strongly associated with greater support for same-sex marriage, the effect is attenuated for individuals with a higher proportion of religious conservatives in their core network. This moderating effect holds even after controlling for respondents’ religiosity and when the sample is limited to self-identified religious liberals and moderates. Future research on intergroup contact should be attentive to other influences within individuals’ social contexts and examine how the outcomes of contact across a variety of social boundaries are moderated by these social influences.”

“Changing Same-Sex Marriage Attitudes in America from 1988 Through 2010” Baunach, Dawn Michelle . Public Opinion Quarterly , summer 2012, Vol. 76, 364-378. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs022.

Abstract: “Many of the characteristics commonly thought to increase opposition to same-sex marriage (including being African American, living in the southern United States, being an evangelical Protestant, and being Republican) are associated with attitudes only in the later years. In 1988, opposition was generally much higher for everyone; most respondents expressed at least some to strong disapproval of same-sex marriage in 1988, which was then reduced for the highly educated, urban residents, and those with less conservative or no religious affiliations… But, by 2010, support for same-sex marriage was much more broad-based, and opposition to same-sex marriage became more localized to specific subgroups — older Americans, southerners, African Americans, evangelical Protestants, and Republicans. The decomposition analysis finds that changing same-sex marriage attitudes are not due to demographic changes in the American population. Rather, the liberalization in same-sex marriage attitudes from 1988 to 2010 is due primarily to a general societal change in attitudes, as is evidenced by the large change in the constant. Taken together, the results suggest that changing attitudes toward same-sex marriage reflect a cultural shift.”

“Legislating Unequal Treatment: An Exploration of Public Policy on Same-Sex Marriage” Chonody, Jill M.; Smith, Kenneth Scott; Litle; Melanie A. GLBT Family Studies , 2012, Vol. 8, Issue 3, 270-286. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2012.677238.

Abstract: “Social policy surrounding same-sex marriage has resulted in subsequent changes to public policy. Over the past 15 years, increased discussion surrounding the issue has emerged, inciting the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). It is particularly salient for social workers to keep abreast of legislation that is impacting vulnerable and disenfranchised populations. Since the social work profession espouses social justice values for those who are oppressed, inclusion of gays and lesbians in this mission must take a higher priority, especially in light of the social capriciousness that has recently emerged. This article provides a history of the policies that have framed the current national debate about same-sex marriage as well as recent judicial and legislative changes. A summary of the social and economic consequences to same-sex marriage bans will be provided along with social work implications.”

“Will Marriage Matter? Effects of Marriage Anticipated by Same-Sex Couples” Shulman, Julie L.; Gotta, Gabrielle; Green, Robert-Jay. Journal of Family Issues , 2011, Vol. 33, No. 2, 158-181. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11406228.

Abstract: “The current study used an online survey to explore the anticipated impact of legalized marriage on partners in same-sex couples living in California. These data were gathered prior to the California Supreme Court decision in May 2008 legalizing same-sex marriage, which held sway for 5 months before California Proposition 8 eliminating same-sex marriage was passed by a voter referendum. In addition to administering three quantitative measures (Gay and Lesbian Acceptance and Social Support Index, Anticipated Impact of Marriage Scale, and The Couple Satisfaction Index), a qualitative approach to inquiry was used to derive themes in the reported experiences of the study participants. The principal theme emerging from participants’ responses involved a ubiquitous sense of security in all areas of their life, including increased permanence in their couple relationship as well as feeling protected as a unit by the larger society.”

“The Impact of Institutional Discrimination on Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: A Prospective Study” Hatzenbuehler, Mark L.; et al. American Journal of Public Health , March 2010, Vol. 100, Issue 3. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815.

Findings: “Living in states with discriminatory policies may have pernicious consequences for the mental health of LGB populations.”

“Morality or Equality? Ideological Framing in News Coverage of Gay Marriage Legitimization” Pan, Po-Lin; Meng, Juan; Zhou, Shuhua. Social Science Journal , September 2010, Vol. 47, Issue 3. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.002.

Findings: “The study used the Massachusetts legitimization of gay marriage as a dividing point to look at what kinds of specific political or social topics related to gay marriage were highlighted in the news media…The results indicated that The New York Times was inclined to emphasize the topic of human equality related to the legitimization of gay marriage. After the legitimization, The New York Times became an activist for gay marriage. Alternatively, the Chicago Tribune highlighted the importance of human morality associated with the gay marriage debate. The perspective of the Chicago Tribune was not dramatically influenced by the legitimization.”

“California’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: The Campaign and its Effects on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Individuals” Maisel, Natalya; Fingerhut, Adam W. Journal of Social Issues , June 2011, Vol. 67, Issue 2, 242-263. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01696.x.

Findings: “Participants reported experiencing both negative and positive emotions (e.g., anger, pride) and were particularly ambivalent regarding the effect of Proposition 8 on relationships with friends, family, coworkers, and their intimate partner. The campaign created opportunities for support but also opportunities for stigmatization and conflict.”

“Impact of Marriage Restriction Amendments on Family Members of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Individuals” Horne , Sharon G.; Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D.B. Journal of Social Issues , June 2011, Vol. 67, Issue 2, 358-375. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01702.x.

Findings: “Analysis of responses to an open-ended question about feelings about marriage amendments revealed six themes, including concern for the safety and well-being of LGB family members and negative impact on family. Overall, findings suggest that family members may experience increased concern for LGB family members during policy initiatives aimed at LGB individuals.”

“Psychological Distress, Well-being, and Legal Recognition in Same-sex Couple Relationships” Riggle, Ellen D.B.; Rostosky, Sharon S.; Horne, Sharon G. Journal of Family Psychology , February 2010, Vol. 24, 82-86. doi: 10.1037/a0017942.

Findings: “Participants in a legally recognized relationship reported less internalized homophobia, fewer depressive symptoms, lower levels of stress, and more meaning in their lives than those in committed relationships, even after controlling for other factors.”

Tags: research roundup, gay issues, law

About The Author

John Wihbey

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Attitudes toward Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage: The Roles of Parental Attitudes, Traditional Gender Role Values, and Filial Piety

Ting kin ng.

1 Department of Psychology, Lingnan University, 8 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong

Ting Hin Lee

Hazyle yuen.

2 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Associated Data

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Past studies have suggested that people’s attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriages are influenced by their parents’ attitudes toward homosexuality. The current study intends to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of these associations by proposing a moderated mediation model incorporating traditional gender role values as a mediator and filial piety as a moderator. One hundred and fifteen adults (33.9% male and 66.1% female) aged from 18 to 36 years (M = 21.47, SD = 3.78) from Hong Kong completed an online questionnaire. The results of the latent moderated structural equations model showed that filial piety significantly moderated the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values. The indirect effects were only significant when filial piety was high or medium but not when filial piety was low. These findings unpack the mechanisms underlying the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage and provide the boundary condition for the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, public attitudes toward homosexuality have become increasingly favorable worldwide [ 1 ]. However, many individuals still hold negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people [ 2 , 3 ]. Homosexuals are prone to discrimination, rejection and violence in daily life owing to their sexual orientation [ 4 ]. Sexual orientation-based discrimination and violence are detrimental to the psychological well-being of homosexual individuals [ 5 , 6 ].

Researchers have long been interested in investigating factors that influence attitudes toward homosexuality [ 7 ]. More recently, some scholars have contended that although attitudes toward homosexuality appear to be directly related to attitudes toward same-sex marriage, the relationship between the two may be more complicated than it seems [ 8 , 9 ]. It has been argued that some people who personally oppose homosexuality may view same-sex marriage as a basic civil right for homosexuals [ 8 ]. Moreover, some opponents of same-sex marriage deny their disapproval of homosexuality and frame their rejection of same-sex marriage in terms of values such as tradition, democracy, and children’s welfare [ 9 ]. Therefore, this study focused on attitudes toward both homosexuality and sex-same marriage. The main aim of this study is to advance the extant literature by examining the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the mediating role of traditional gender role values, and the moderating role of filial piety among adults in Hong Kong.

1.1. Parental Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Parental attitudes toward homosexuality are crucial predictors of attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. According to socialization theories, parents play critical roles in transmitting values, beliefs, traditions, and attitudes to their children [ 10 ]. Past studies have found that parental attitudes are predictors of children’s attitudes in general [ 11 ]. Parents often hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than their children do, as older generations tend to be less accepting of homosexuals compared with younger generations [ 12 ]. Research has found that parental disapproval of homosexuality is associated with more negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals [ 13 ] and same-sex marriage [ 14 ]. The impacts of parental attitudes may be especially pronounced in collectivistic Asian cultures, which emphasize family hierarchy [ 15 , 16 ] and parents’ responsibilities in educating their children [ 17 , 18 ]. Therefore, it is expected that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality will be related to less positive attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage among adults in Hong Kong.

1.2. The Mediating Role of Traditional Gender Role Values

Although prior work has documented the effects of parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward gays, lesbians and same-sex marriage [ 13 , 14 ], the mechanisms through which parental attitudes toward homosexuality influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage have not been well understood. The current study endeavors to unpack the indirect processes underlying these associations by examining the potential mediating role of traditional gender role values.

Traditional gender role values refer to social expectations that men and women should behave according to gendered stereotypes [ 19 ]. These values involve the beliefs that males should be masculine (e.g., independent, assertive, dominant) and females should be feminine (e.g., affectionate, caring, nurturance) [ 20 ]. Individuals who endorse traditional gender role values are likely to oppose homosexuality [ 21 ]. The traditional view of gender roles assumes that each individual should date or marry an opposite sex partner [ 22 ]. Therefore, same-sex relationships and marriage are regarded as violations of conventional gender roles [ 21 , 23 ]. Previous studies have affirmed that stronger endorsement of traditional gender role values is related to more negative attitudes toward homosexuality [ 21 ], and people with non-traditional gender role beliefs exhibited less rejection of lesbians and gays [ 24 ].

Parental attitudes toward homosexuality may influence endorsement of traditional gender values. As aforementioned, socialization theories highlight the key roles of parents in socializing values and attitudes to their children [ 10 ]. Apart from transferring anti-gay and anti-lesbian attitudes to their children, parents with negative attitudes toward homosexuality are likely to communicate traditional gender role values to their children and raise their children according to conventional gender stereotypes. It has been found that homophobic parents endorse traditional sex role stereotypes to a greater extent compared with non-homophobic parents [ 25 ]. Furthermore, research has also shown that more negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians are associated with more traditional gender role beliefs in child rearing [ 26 ]. Taken together, it is logical to predict that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality will be associated with higher endorsement of traditional gender role values, which in turn will be associated with less accepting attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

1.3. The Moderating Role of Filial Piety

If people’s attitudes toward homosexuality mainly depend on their parents’ attitudes, it would be surprising that younger generations hold more favorable attitudes toward homosexuality compared with older generations [ 12 ]. Research on parental attitudes toward homosexuality has yielded mixed evidence. For instance, a study found that college students’ attitudes toward homosexuality were not significantly related to negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality [ 27 ]. The inconsistent findings suggest that the relationship may be influenced by a moderator [ 28 , 29 ].

This study seeks to extend the existing literature by investigating the potential moderating role of filial piety in the relationships among parental attitudes toward homosexuality, traditional gender role values, and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Filial piety refers to a set of expectations of children’s behavior toward their parents, including obedience, respect, and providing care and financial support to aged parents [ 27 , 30 ]. Filial piety is linked to disapproval of homosexuality, because establishing a traditional family and preserving the continuity of the family bloodline are regarded as crucial filial obligations [ 27 ]. Past studies have revealed a negative relationship between filial piety and attitudes toward homosexuality [ 27 , 31 ].

Filial piety may enhance the effect of parental attitudes on children’s attitudes. As obeying and respecting parents are core filial piety values [ 27 ], children who are more filial tend to have greater willingness to be socialized by their parents [ 32 ]. One study showed that filial piety significantly moderated the relationship between parental attitudes toward marriage and negative lesbian, gay, or bisexual identities among lesbian, gay, or bisexual students, such that the relationship was only significant when filial piety was high but not when filial piety was low [ 31 ]. In this light, filial piety may provide a boundary condition for the direct effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as well as the indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values.

1.4. Potential Effects of Gender, Age, and Sexual Orientation

Past studies have suggested that gender, age, and sexual orientation may influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. One study revealed that men held more negative attitudes toward gay marriage and lesbian marriage than women did [ 33 ]. Moreover, younger people tended to have more favorable attitudes toward homosexuals compared with older people [ 34 ]. Furthermore, straight men were found to hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than gay men did [ 35 ]. Therefore, this study included gender, age, and sexual orientation as control variables.

1.5. The Current Study

Prior studies have predominantly focused on the direct effects of parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage [ 12 , 13 ]. The present study aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of these relationships by investigating the mediating effect of traditional gender role values and the moderating effect of filial piety among adults in Hong Kong. The proposed moderated mediation model is illustrated in Figure 1 . Several hypotheses were proposed. First, it is hypothesized that the associations between negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage will be mediated by traditional gender role values. Second, it is hypothesized that filial piety will moderate the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage, such that the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality will be stronger when filial piety is higher. Third, it is hypothesized that filial piety will moderate the indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values, such that the indirect effect will be stronger when filial piety is higher.

Hypothesized moderated mediation model. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage.

2.1. Participants and Procedure

One hundred and fifteen adults from Hong Kong participated in this study. Among them, 33.9% were male and 66.1% were female. Their age ranged from 18 to 36 years (M = 21.47, SD = 3.78). With respect to their sexual orientation, 81.7% were heterosexual, 7.8% were homosexual, and 10.4% were bisexual.

Data were collected using an online questionnaire written in English. Participants were recruited either through the participation pool of an Introduction to Psychology course (74.8%) or through personal contacts (25.2%). Participation was voluntary and anonymous. On average, the questionnaire took about 15 min to complete.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. attitudes toward homosexuality.

Participants’ attitudes toward homosexuality were measured using the Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Scale (ATHS) [ 2 , 36 ]. The original ATHS consists of 25 items written in French [ 36 ]. This study adopted the 16-item English version of the ATHS [ 2 ]. A sample item is “Homosexuality is a natural expression of affection and sexuality”. Respondents were asked to report to the extent to which they agreed upon each statement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A higher scale score represents more positive attitudes toward homosexuality.

2.2.2. Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage

The Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Scale (ATSM) [ 8 ] was employed to assess participants’ attitudes toward same-sex marriage. A sample item is “Same-sex marriage ensures equal rights for all relationships regardless of sexual orientation”. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed upon each statement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score indicates more positive attitudes toward homosexual marriage.

2.2.3. Negative Parental Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were measured using a two-item measure [ 27 ]. A sample item is “My parents disapprove of homosexuality”. The items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score reflects more negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality.

2.2.4. Filial Piety

Participants’ level of endorsement of filial piety was assessed with a four-item measure [ 27 ]. One sample item is “It is important for me to respect my parents”. Each item was scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A higher score represents a greater endorsement of filial piety.

2.2.5. Traditional Gender Role Values

Participants’ level of endorsement of traditional gender role values was measured by a four-item measure [ 21 ]. One sample item is “When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women”. All items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A higher scale score indicates greater endorsement of traditional gender role values.

3. Data Analysis

Considering the small sample size relative to the number of measurement items, three item categories were constructed for each latent construct [ 37 ], apart from the two-item measure of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality. To test the hypothesized moderated mediating effects, the latent moderated structural equations (LMS) method [ 38 , 39 ] with maximum likelihood estimation was performed using Mplus. In the first step, a model without the interaction term (Model 0) was analyzed. Next, the latent interaction term (negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety) was generated using the XWITH function of Mplus [ 39 ], and LMS models with the effects of the latent interaction term on attitudes toward homosexuality (Model 1a), attitudes toward same-sex marriage (Model 1b), and traditional gender role values (Model 1c) were analyzed. The potential effects of gender, age, and sexual orientation on the dependent variables (attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex marriage) and mediator (traditional gender role values) were controlled for in all models. Gender was coded as a dummy variable (1 = female, 0 = male). Sexual orientation was represented by two dummy variables, homosexual orientation (1 = yes, 0 = no) and bisexual orientation (1 = yes, 0 = no) and heterosexual orientation served as the reference category.

The goodness-of-fit of Model 0 was evaluated using a combination of fit statistics, including the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). A good model fit is indicated by a RMSEA < 0.06, a SRMR < 0.08, a CFI > 0.95, and a TLI > 0.95 [ 40 ]. Fit statistics cannot be estimated when the XWITH function of Mplus is applied to analyze a LMS model [ 39 ]. Therefore, a log-likelihood test was conducted to compare Model 0 with Model 1a, 1b and 1c. A significant result suggests that the inclusion of the interaction effect significantly improves the model fit. If Model 0 showed a good fit and the log-likelihood test was significant, the LMS model (Model 1a, 1b or 1c) also fitted the data well [ 38 , 39 ]. Hypothesized effects were examined using one-tailed tests. The predicted moderated mediating effects and conditional indirect effects were analyzed using the bootstrapping technique, which has advantages over other indirect effect tests with lower statistical power and reliance on the normality assumption [ 41 ]. Biased-corrected 90% confidence intervals (BC 90% CIs) were generated with 1000 resamples as one-tailed tests of moderated mediating effects and conditional indirect effects at the 0.05 confidence level.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

The descriptive statistics of the study variables are listed in Table 1 . All variables demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency reliability (α = 0.78 to 0.91). Attitudes toward same-sex marriage were positively associated with attitudes toward homosexuality and negatively associated with negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality, filial piety, and traditional gender role values. Attitudes toward homosexuality were negatively associated with negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and traditional gender role values. Traditional gender role values were positively associated with negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and filial piety.

Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables.

Note. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Values on the diagonal are Cronbach’s α coefficients. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Table 2 shows the demographic and study variables by gender. Males reported higher endorsement of filial piety and traditional gender role values than females did. No gender differences were observed for other variables.

Demographic and Study Variables by Gender.

Note. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. * p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001.

4.2. Latent Moderated Structural Equations

The model without the interaction term (Model 0) achieved an excellent model fit, χ 2 (138) = 174.65, p = 0.019, RMSEA = 0.048, 90% CI [0.021, 0.069], SRMR = 0.055, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96. The standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.94. Compared to Model 0, the model with the negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety interaction effect on attitudes toward homosexuality (Model 1a) did not fit the data better, χ 2 (1) = 0.02, p = 0.888. The model with the negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety interaction effect on attitudes toward same-sex marriage (Model 1b) was also not significantly superior to Model 0, χ 2 (1) = 0.41, p = 0.523. These two interaction effects were not added.

The model with the negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety interaction effect on traditional gender role values (Model 1c) was significantly better than Model 0, χ 2 (1) = 3.86, p = 0.049, indicating that the addition of the interaction effect resulted in improved model fit. Model 1c was retained as the final model (see Figure 2 ).

Final moderated mediation model. Solid lines represent significant paths. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths. Significant standardized coefficients are presented. Control variables (gender, age, and sexual orientation), observed indicators and error variances are omitted for clarity. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Regarding the effects of control variables, traditional gender role values were positively predicted by age (β = 0.27, p = 0.002) and negatively predicted by female gender (β = −0.31, p < 0.001). Moreover, attitudes toward homosexuality were positively predicted by homosexual orientation (β = 0.37, p < 0.001) and bisexual orientation (β = 0.35, p < 0.001). Furthermore, attitudes toward same-sex marriage were negatively predicted by female gender (β = −0.19, p = 0.010) and positively predicted by homosexual orientation (β = 0.15, p = 0.027) and bisexual orientation (β = 0.30, p < 0.001).

Attitudes toward homosexuality were negatively predicted by traditional gender role values (β = −0.46, p < 0.001) and negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality (β = −0.25, p = 0.004). Attitudes toward same-sex marriage were negatively predicted by traditional gender role values (β = −0.64, p < 0.001). Traditional gender role values were negatively predicted by negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and (β = 0.21, p = 0.013) filial piety (β = 0.30, p = 0.002).

Moreover, filial piety significantly enhanced the effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values (β = 0.19, p = 0.025). Simple slopes were investigated at high (M + 1SD), medium (M), and low (M – 1SD) levels of filial piety (see Figure 3 ). The simple main effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values was significant when filial piety was high (β = 0.40, p = 0.003) or medium (β = 0.21, p = 0.013), but not when filial piety was low (β = 0.02, p = 0.433).

The simple main effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role value at high (M + 1SD), medium (M), and low (M – 1SD) levels of filial piety.

The results of moderated mediation analyses are summarized in Table 3 . Filial piety significantly enhanced the negative indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality via traditional gender role values (index of moderated mediation = −0.19, BC 90% CI [−0.47, −0.02]). The indirect effect was significant at high or medium filial piety but not at low filial piety (see Table 2 ). Furthermore, filial piety significantly strengthened the negative indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values (index of moderated mediation = −0.20, BC 90% CI [−0.49, −0.02]). The indirect effect was significant at high or medium filial piety but not at low filial piety (see Table 2 ).

Indices of Moderated Mediation and Conditional Indirect Effects.

Note. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. BC 90% CI = bias-corrected 90% confidence interval. * p < 0.05.

5. Discussion

Previous research has linked parental attitudes toward homosexuality to attitudes toward gays, lesbians and same-sex marriage [ 12 , 13 ]. The current study attempts to elaborate on these relationships by testing a moderated mediation model, in which traditional gender role values served as a mediator and filial piety functioned as a moderator. In line with our hypothesis, this study showed that filial piety significantly enhanced the effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values. Furthermore, it was also shown that filial piety significantly enhanced the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values.

This study found that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were associated with greater endorsement of traditional gender role values. This finding echoes the previous research findings that more homophobic parents have a greater endorsement of traditional sex roles [ 25 ], and negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians are related to more traditional gender role beliefs in child rearing [ 26 ]. Furthermore, this study revealed that filial piety significantly enhanced the association between negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and traditional gender role values. Negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were associated with traditional gender role values only for those with high or medium levels of filial piety, but not for those with a low level of filial piety. This finding is in accordance with the notion that more filial children may be more willing to internalize values socialized by their parents [ 32 ]. Nonetheless, filial piety did not significantly moderate the direct effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It may be because the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were mediated by traditional gender role values.

More importantly, the current results indicated that filial piety significantly exacerbated the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values. One study found that filial piety significantly enhanced the effect of parental attitudes toward marriage on the negative lesbian, gay and bisexual identities of homosexual and bisexual students, such that the effect of parental attitudes toward marriage was only significant at a high level of filial piety [ 31 ]. The current study further identified filial piety as the boundary condition for the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values. For adults with high or medium levels of filial piety, negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were positively related to greater endorsement of traditional gender role values, which in turn was negatively related to attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. However, these indirect effects were not observed for adults with a low level of filial piety. This finding shed light on the mechanisms through which parental attitudes toward homosexuality influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it was found that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality had a significant direct effect on attitudes toward homosexuality but not on attitudes toward same-sex marriage after controlling for traditional gender role values. One possible explanation may be that opposite-sex marriage is one major aspect of conventional gender roles [ 22 ]. Thus, the effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward same-sex marriage may be completely mediated by traditional gender role values. Further investigations are required to verify this claim.

5.1. Implications

The findings of this study have important practical implications. In particular, the present findings indicate that more negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality lead to less accepting attitudes toward homosexuality via traditional gender role values, especially for those who have high or medium levels of filial piety. In this light, interventions that aim at promoting tolerance for homosexuality will not only influence parents’ attitudes but also their children’s attitudes. Research has supported the effectiveness of education programs about homosexuality in promoting more tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality [ 42 ]. Future studies are recommended to investigate whether delivering education programs about homosexuality to parents will also change their children’s attitudes toward homosexuality.

5.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

In spite of its theoretical contributions, this study was not without limitations. First, this study adopted a cross-sectional survey design, which precludes inferences about the causal directions among the study variables [ 43 ]. Future work is suggested to employ a longitudinal design to provide stronger evidence for the causality among variables. Second, this study used self-report measures of attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Self-report measures are prone to social desirability bias [ 44 ], especially questions on sensitive topics such as attitudes toward homosexuality [ 45 ]. Further research is recommended to adopt an implicit measure of attitudes toward homosexuality [ 46 ] in addition to an explicit self-report measure. Third, the sample of this study only included adults. Researchers have argued that parenting may be more influential for children and adolescents than for adults [ 47 ]. Further studies are needed to examine the effects of parental attitudes on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage among children and adolescents. Fourth, this study only recruited participants from Hong Kong. Scholars have noted that filial piety [ 48 ] and parents’ obligations in disciplining their children [ 17 , 18 ] are highly valued in collectivistic Asian cultures. Future research is required to verify the roles of parental attitudes and filial piety on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage among individuals from other cultures. Fifth, most participants in this study were heterosexual. As shown in the current results, homosexual and bisexual participants reported more positive attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage compared with heterosexual participants. Future research is suggested to further examine the observed moderated mediating effects among homosexual and bisexual individuals.

6. Conclusions

The present study attempts to offer a fuller understanding of the associations of parental attitudes toward homosexuality with attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. We proposed a moderated mediation model in which traditional gender role values served as a mediator and filial piety served as a moderator. The results of the LMS model revealed that the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values were significantly moderated by filial piety. The indirect effects emerged at high or medium levels of filial piety, but not at a low level of filial piety. The current findings disentangle the mechanisms through which negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage and identify the boundary condition for the indirect processes.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Faculty Research Grant from Lingnan University (Project No. 103408).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K.N. and H.Y.; methodology, T.K.N. and H.Y.; software, T.K.N.; validation, T.K.N., T.H.L., H.Y. and W.C.; formal analysis, T.K.N.; investigation, T.K.N., T.H.L. and H.Y.; resources, T.K.N., T.H.L. and H.Y.; data curation, T.K.N. and H.Y.; writing—original draft, T.K.N., T.H.L., H.Y. and W.C.; writing—review and editing, T.K.N., T.H.L., H.Y. and W.C.; visualization, T.K.N.; supervision, T.K.N.; project administration, T.K.N. and H.Y.; funding acquisition, T.K.N. and T.H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Office of Research and Knowledge Transfer of Lingnan University (protocol code EC-015/2122 and date of approval: 19 October 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Same Sex Marriage Chapter

Related Papers

Linnri Castro

Erythrina Nicole , Magdalena Robinson

Prof. Dr. Hadi SHALLUF

Same Sex Marriage Ethics , religion and Law

Douglas Sanders

An analysis of what LGBTI issues are prominent in various countries in Asia, followed by an updated analysis of moves to recognition of same-sex relationships in Asia, notably in Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan. Paper was presented at the Asian Law Schools Conference in Beijing.

Joana Marie Garcia

Marl Jeric A Robillos

The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States’ commitment to promoting human rights.” -United Stated President Barrack Obama (2011)

Adrienne Monday Mendoza

This mini-research project was conducted to compare the rate of same-sex marriage support between UP, a non-sectarian university, and UST, a sectarian Catholic university.

Danielle Ochoa , Eric Julian Manalastas , Diwa Malaya Quinones

Same-sex marriage in the Philippines remains a highly contentious issue due to the influence of religion in this predominantly Catholic country, where it is often framed as an issue of morality. However, the psychological underpinnings of this religious influence still merits further exploration. Thus, we examined the role of religious behaviors and moral foundations in predicting attitudes toward same-sex marriage among Filipinos. Data from 385 participants revealed that the particular behavior of reading the main sacred text of one's religion, rather than the often-used predictor of religious attendance predicts negative attitudes. Beyond these religious variables, the moral foundation of Purity/sanctity also predicts negative attitudes. Recommendations for further research and possible implications on attitude change are discussed in light of these findings.

Jean-Noël Sánchez Pons

This paper explores the interactions between male homosexuality and the Catholic Church in the Philippines today. It pays particular attention to the different identities and social positions of cross-dressing transgender women, on which discourse and imagination on Philippine homosexuality long time exclusively focused, and the growing gay movement which currently leads the struggle for LGBT empowerment against the Catholic based moral status-quo. However, it also shows that frontiers and divisions are complex and ambiguous both on the side of the Church as institution as well as that of the male homosexual community and that norms and conformism strongly weight on the positions adopted by the different actors and their agenda.

Elaine Jeffreys

What might motivate the People's Republic of China (PRC) to recognize same-sex marriage and what has spurred Taiwan's Constitutional Court to instruct the Taiwan parliament to legalize same-sex marriage? This chapter traces the emergence of advocacy for marriage equality in the context of two different and evolving political systems. Taiwan looks set to become the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage as the result of an active LGBT movement, multiparty strategizing and government efforts to differentiate Taiwan from China in international arenas. But the exact nature of such legislation may be influenced by public protest against marriage equality on the grounds that it will undermine religious and traditional Chinese family values. While domestic pressure for marriage equality is a more recent and restrained phenomenon in China, the rise of the PRC as a global superpower and the current administration's emphasis on promoting " Chinese " and core socialist values may eventually enable the recognition of same-sex marriage equality by government fiat.

RELATED PAPERS

Nathalia Tavares

Mai Phuong Thao

Transactions of The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence

Katsumi Nitta

Journal of bacteriology

Jeanette hahn

Studia Germanica Posnaniensia

Agnieszka Palej

Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry

JINYUN WANG

Scientific reports

césar alfaro

Yasmina Barboza

mayank kashyap

Journal of Equine Veterinary Science

Ivone Bruno

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

Sebastien Meffre

Joshua Samuels

lasallista.edu.co

Natalia garzón grajales

Henry Correa

Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy

zainab fatima

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung B

Herbert Roesky

Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy

Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional

Miftahul Firdaus

Advances in social science, education and humanities research

Ian Kurniawan

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications

Sanjeev Kumar Mandal

emmanuel sunny

Frontiers in Microbiology

Meghshree Deshmukh

Shah Naseer

Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis

Prakash Katakam

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024