research report about same sex marriage

Q&A: These researchers examined 20 years of data on same-sex marriage. Here’s what they found

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does marriage make people better off?

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

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

What prompted you to examine same-sex marriage now?

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

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

What did you find?

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

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

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

On same-sex marriage, ‘the country has caught up with California’

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Vice President Kamala Harris were at the vanguard in pushing for marriage equality, which will soon be signed into federal law.

Dec. 12, 2022

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

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

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

What sorts of things did these studies measure?

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

There was no evidence of harms anywhere.

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

Who benefits the most from legalizing same-sex marriage?

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

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

What’s behind these improvements?

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

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

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

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

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

What did all that data tell you?

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

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

World & Nation

Hearing threat to Roe vs. Wade, I thought of my gay marriage — and Jim Obergefell’s fight

Like LGBTQ people nationwide, I can’t help but worry that the legal logic that might topple Roe will be used against my marriage.

May 16, 2022

What do you think was going on?

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

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

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

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

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

MZ: That is an excellent way of putting it!

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

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

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

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

More to Read

Opinion: Interracial marriage went from criminal to commonplace. Could it go back?

June 9, 2024

Newsom urges California voters to protect same-sex marriage amid Supreme Court distrust

June 7, 2024

The U.S. has caught up to California on views of LGBTQ+ rights, poll shows

June 6, 2024

Karen Kaplan covers science and medical research for the Los Angeles Times. She has been a member of the science team since 2005, including 13 years as an editor. Her first decade at The Times was spent covering technology in the Business section as both a reporter and editor. She grew up in San Diego and is a graduate of MIT and Columbia University.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Police serve warrants, arrest family-run “Dodger Crew” theft ring in South L.A.

Microdosing mushroom chocolates from Diamond Shruumz linked to illness, hospitalization

Who is Alex Trebek? ‘Jeopardy!’ icon inspires new USPS Forever stamp

June 21, 2024

Former Ace Hotel in downtown L.A. reopens as ‘Airbnb on steroids’

Same-sex marriage: What you need to know

• Marriage and Relationships

Are same-sex marriages different from heterosexual marriages?

Like heterosexuals, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships and many of them do. In fact, researchers have found that the majority of lesbian, and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together 10 or more years.

Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships . Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Same-sex and heterosexual couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research also shows that lesbian and gay couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

How do laws that limit marriage to heterosexuals affect gay and lesbian people?

Being denied the right to marry reinforces the stigma associated with a minority sexual identity. Researchers have found that living in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems . Psychologists are particularly concerned that such stigma may undermine the healthy development of adolescents and young adults.

The families and friends of lesbian and gay couples who are denied marriage rights may also experience negative physical and mental health consequences similar to those experienced by their loved ones.

Do same-sex couples make fit parents?

The vast majority of scientific studies that have directly compared lesbian and gay parents with heterosexual parents have consistently shown that the same-sex couples are as fit and capable parents as heterosexual couples , and that their children are just as psychologically healthy and well adjusted. For instance, one recent study found that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as children of heterosexual couples, and these children are equally popular among their peers.

Why is marriage so important?

Marriage bestows economic and social support to couples in committed relationships, which can result in substantial health benefits . Researchers have found that married men and women generally experience better physical and mental health than comparable cohabiting couples. Additionally, same-sex couples in legal unions are more likely to remain in a committed relationship than those denied marriage rights.

Taken together, the research shows that there’s no scientific basis for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and doing so can adversely affect them as well as their family and friends.

For more information, visit APA’s marriage and family issues for LGBT people page.

This fact sheet is based on APA’s amicus brief in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry and APA’s Public Interest Government Relations Office fact sheet on Marriage Equality and LGBT Health.

Related reading

• Marriage and Family Issues for LGBT People
• Understanding transgender people, gender identity and gender expression
• Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel
• Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA
• Sexual orientation and gender diversity

You may also like

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

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.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Kapya J Kaoma , Kapya Kaoma

Freddie Thomas

Mayrll Louise Santos

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

Same-Sex Marriage

• Conference: Society for Pentecostal Studies
• At: San Dimas California USA

• Evangel University

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Judith Balswick

• Jaimée Allman
• Michael Coogan
• Elizabeth Dias
• Celeste Gracey
• Jeremy Weber
• Pew Research
• Abby Phillip
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Spouses of US Citizens Lose Supreme Court Visa Denial Case (1)

By Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson

Federal courts can’t second-guess visa denials for spouses of American citizens even if it means the couple can’t live together in the US, the Supreme Court said.

The 6-3 ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Friday said such denials don’t implicate the rights of US citizens.

The ruling is a loss for Sandra Muñoz, who sued the State Department after her husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador, was denied a visa.

Ultimately the State Department said it rejected Asencio-Cordero because it believed he was affiliated with the international gang MS-13. He denied being a member of the group.

Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor chided her conservative colleagues for failing to resolve the dispute on narrow grounds and instead deciding it in a way that she said undermined the right to same-sex marriage.

“There was a simple way to resolve this case,” Sotomayor said. “Instead, the majority swings for the fences.”

Fundamental Right

All justices agreed that Asencio-Cordero couldn’t challenge his visa denial. Such decisions are for the political branches, not the judiciary. But Barrett raised a “narrow exception” to that rule allowing for judicial review when denial affects the rights of a US citizen.

That’s where agreement among the justices ended.

Writing for the high court’s conservatives save Justice Neil Gorsuch, Barrett said the exception didn’t apply in this case because Muñoz didn’t have a “fundamental right” in her spouse being admitted to the country.

The specific nature of the asserted right was “difficult to pin down,” Barrett said. But she said it was akin to a right to reside with a noncitizen spouse in the US.

History shows that’s not true, Barrett said. In particular, the “Government’s sovereign authority to set the terms governing the admission and exclusion of noncitizens” cuts the other way.

Gorsuch’s separate concurring opinion agreed with the outcome but not its reasoning.

Muñoz received everything she was entitled to through litigation, namely, an explanation of why her spouse’s visa was denied, Gorsuch said.

“Those developments should end this case,” Gorsuch said in declining to explain whether Muñoz’s own rights were affected.

Same-Sex Marriage

Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues appeared to agree with Gorsuch. But their dissenting opinion took the majority to task for going further.

They said defining Muñoz’s rights so narrowly to include only the right to reside with a spouse undercut the court’s broad definition of marriage in previous cases, including the right to same-sex marriage.

Previous cases testing the right to marriage didn’t ask whether there was a right to interracial marriage or for inmates to marry, Sotomayor wrote. “Instead, ‘each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense’ of ‘marriage and intimacy.’”

Sotomayor said the court’s error in the Munoz case was the same “fatal error it made in Dobbs ,” the 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion. That, she said, was requiring too specific a description of an asserted fundamental right.

The case is Department of State v. Munoz, U.S., No. 23-334.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson in Washington at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Crawley at [email protected]

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

• Shop to Support Independent Journalism
• We Have Issues
• Investigations
• Ethics Policy
• Ad-Free Login

‘Ominous opinion’: Same-sex marriage targeted again in latest SCOTUS ruling, expert warns

David badash, the new civil rights movement.

In a 6-3 decision along partisan lines the right-wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court once again targeted the landmark 2015 Obergefell same-sex marriage decision, leading liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor to sound "alarm bells" on marriage equality in her dissent a legal expert says, warning that they may try to "roll it back."

The case involves Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen who argued that the federal government's denial of a visa for her husband, who lives in El Salvador, deprives her of her constitutionally protected right to liberty.

The right-wing majority in a decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled: "A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."

Friday's ruling "undermines same-sex marriage," Bloomberg Law reports Justice Sotomayor's dissent warns.

Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern has covered the courts since 2013, and is the author of a 2019 book on the Roberts Supreme Court.

"Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, accuses the conservative supermajority of cutting back the rights guaranteed in Obergefell—the same-sex marriage decision—and of repeating 'the same fatal error' it made in Dobbs," Stern writes . "A very ominous opinion."

READ MORE: ‘Desperately Needed’: Trump Wants ‘Revival’ of Religion and Ten Commandments in Classrooms

The "fatal error" in Dobbs was ignoring precedent.

"Justice Sotomayor says the burden of today's decision will 'fall most heavily' on same-sex couples, many of whom cannot safely reside in the non-citizen's home country," Stern adds . "Her dissent is littered with alarm bells about Obergefell."

He points to this from Sotomayor's dissent, a citation from the Obergefell decision:

"A traveler to the United States two centuries ago reported that '‘[t]here is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America.’ ' "

"Today," Sotomayor continued, "the majority fails to live up to that centuries-old promise. Muñoz may be able to live with her husband in El Salvador, but it will mean raising her U. S.-citizen child outside the United States. Others will be less fortunate. The burden will fall most heavily on same-sex couples and others who lack the ability, for legal or financial reasons, to make a home in the noncitizen spouse’s country of origin."

Again quoting Obergefell, she adds, "For those couples, this Court’s vision of marriage as the 'assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other' rings hollow."

Stern warns : "I think Justice Sotomayor is clearly correct that the Supreme Court's gratuitous attack on the constitutional rights of married couples in Muñoz—especially same-sex couples—suggests that the conservative justices hate Obergefell and may roll it back."

Sotomayor began her dissent also with a quote from Obergefell: “The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition.”

READ MORE: ‘Fact Checking His Delusions’: Trump’s Falsehoods May Not Be Lies Anymore, Critics Warn

She warns that the right-wing majority could have appropriately issued a narrow ruling but instead chose to hand down a broad decision:

"The majority could have resolved this case on narrow grounds under longstanding precedent," she writes. "Instead, the majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure."

Justice Sotomayor again points to same-sex marriage:

"Muñoz may be able to live in El Salvador alongside her husband or at least visit him there, but not everyone is sovereign lucky. The majority’s holding will also extend to those couples who, like the Lovings and the Obergefells, depend on American law for their marriages’ validity. Same-sex couples may be forced to relocate to countries that do not recognize same-sex marriage, or even those that criminalize homosexuality."

She also noted, "The constitutional right to marriage has deep roots," and "The constitutional right to marriage is not so flimsy," while warning "the majority departs from longstanding precedent and gravely undervalues the right to marriage in the immigration context."

Two years ago almost to the day, when the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade and stripping away the constitutional right to abortion, Stern warned the Court, especially Justice Thomas, would come for contraception, same-sex intimacy, and same-sex marriage:

Clarence Thomas, concurring, explicitly calls on the Supreme Court to overrule Griswold (right to contraception), Lawrence (right to same-sex intimacy), and Obergefell (right to same-sex marriage). https://t.co/bVOozFPA5d   pic.twitter.com/yZLA6DhYh5 — Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 24, 2022

Two years before Dobbs , Stern also warned Justice Thomas was targeting same-sex marriage, writing that "Thomas (joined by Alito) wrote a jaw-dropping rant taking direct aim at Obergefell and suggesting that SCOTUS must overturn the right to marriage equality in order to protect free exercise."

READ MORE: ‘Christian Theocracy’: Ten Commandments Lawmaker Who Can’t ‘Fathom’ Outrage Gets Schooled

Stories Chosen For You

Should trump be allowed to run for office, mystery surrounds sam alito's 2-day supreme court absence as opinions handed down.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was absent again Friday when opinions were handed down in the nation's highest court.

The conservative justice was also not present Thursday for opinion day, which CNN reported was unusual because it's the end of the court's term and nine opinions have been issued in the two days, with more to come next week and possibly even more in July.

No explanation was given for Alito's absence either day.

The court issued opinions Friday upholding a federal law that bars gun ownership for domestic abusers, but still has not handed down a decision in Donald Trump's immunity case.

Alito has drawn recent scrutiny for an upside-down flag associated with the "Stop the Steal" movement that flew outside his home in the days after Jan. 6, 2021, and a Revolutionary War-era flag that has recently been associated with Christian nationalism.

Trump lawyer dodges as Aileen Cannon grills him over 'very ominous' claims: report

District court Judge Aileen Cannon pressed Donald Trump's attorney to defend an extraordinary claim about special counsel Jack Smith during a hearing on his appointment to investigate the former president.

Trump's legal team and some political allies are arguing that Smith, who has charged the ex-president in Florida and Washington, D.C., was not lawfully appointed as special counsel, saying his position amounted to a "shadow government," and Cannon asked him to explain, reported CNN .

“That sounds very ominous,” Cannon said to Trump lawyer Emil Bove. “But what do you really mean?”

Bove did not directly answer the judge's question but repeated his argument that Smith was not lawfully appointed and asked for an additional hearing that would include testimony about the relationship between Smith and Attorney General Merrick Garland to determine whether the special counsel was acting independently or under the direction of the official who appointed him.

Cannon noted that Smith must follow Justice Department regulations, but Bove said the special counsel still did not report to anyone.

ALSO READ: Neuroscientist explains how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different

Federal prosecutor James Pearce argued that Garland could fire Smith "this very moment" if he wished, but said later that the attorney general did not review all of the special counsel's decisions.

Cannon has scheduled three days of hearings into legal arguments in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, including a request by prosecutors for a gag order against Trump and another challenging whether Smith's work was being lawfully funded.

Judge gives Steve Bannon glimmer of hope that he could avoid prison: analyst

Ex-Donald Trump   campaign manager Steve Bannon is headed to prison — and his single chance to avoid his fate is to beg the Supreme Court to save him.

But a judge in a lower appeals court that rejected his attempts to avoid incarceration has handed him a glimmer of hope.

When Bannon unsuccessfully appealed his jailing earlier this week, one of the three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit put out a message that Bannon can grasp as a glimmer of hope, according to MSNBC's Jordan Rubin .

Read Also: How right-wing media turned racism into a machine that generates billions a year

Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress after ignoring a subpoena to appear before a panel investigation into the Jan. 6 riots.

"The dissenting judge, Trump appointee Justin Walker, said that there is a close question regarding interpretation of the contempt statute," wrote Rubin.

"He wrote that, while the D.C. Circuit is bound by its precedent to rule against Bannon in his underlying appeal , the Supreme Court, which isn’t so bound, may take a different view.

"Walker concluded that “because that question may well be material, Bannon should not go to prison before the Supreme Court considers his forthcoming petition for certiorari.”

Rubin wrote that Bannon’s lawyers cited Chief Justice Roberts, who rejected a similar appeal by Trump aide Peter Navarro, who is currently serving prison time for the same contempt of Congress charges. The fact that Roberts explained his reasoning for rejecting Navarro's appeal shows it's not a cut-and-dried case.

Bannon filed for a Supreme Court hearing on Friday.

"With his release attempt now headed toward the justices, we’ll learn whether the high court is interested," wrote Rubin.

"Relief there is still far from guaranteed, but Walker’s dissent may give Bannon hope for a different outcome than Navarro."

‘Creepy weirdos’: Senator fears Trump WH staff would destroy government from ‘inside’

America’s ceos fear the price of being better, beyond trump: the real action in milwaukee won't be the show — but in the back rooms.

Copyright © 2024 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs For corrections contact [email protected] , for support contact [email protected] .

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
• Am J Public Health
• v.103(2); Feb 2013

Same-Sex Legal Marriage and Psychological Well-Being: Findings From the California Health Interview Survey

R. G. Wight designed the study, designed the analytic strategy, conducted the data analysis, and wrote the article. A. J. LeBlanc assisted with the study design, writing of the article, and article preparation. M. V. L. Badgett assisted with the study design, the analytic strategy, and article preparation.

Objectives. We examined whether same-sex marriage was associated with nonspecific psychological distress among self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, and whether it had the potential to offset mental health disparities between lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals.

Methods. Population-based data (weighted) were from the 2009 adult (aged 18–70 years) California Health Interview Survey. Within-group analysis of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons included 1166 individuals (weighted proportion = 3.15%); within-group heterosexual analysis included 35 608 individuals (weighted proportion = 96.58%); and pooled analysis of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals included 36 774 individuals.

Results. Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship; married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than nonmarried heterosexuals. In adjusted pairwise comparisons, married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legalized relationships had the highest psychological distress ( P  < .001). Psychological distress was not significantly distinguishable among same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in registered domestic partnerships, and heterosexuals.

Conclusions. Being in a legally recognized same-sex relationship, marriage in particular, appeared to diminish mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Researchers must continue to examine potential health benefits of same-sex marriage, which is at least in part a public health issue.

Well-established research demonstrates that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons have worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts, highlighting important but poorly understood mental health disparities associated with sexual orientation. 1 For example, a meta-analysis of 4 decades of research concluded that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons had higher rates of mental disorder, substance misuse, suicidal ideation, and self-harm than did heterosexuals. 2 Research that examines both population- and individual-level outcomes supports the theory that sexual minority stressors (e.g., stigma or expectations of rejection, experiences of discrimination, internalized homophobia, the need for concealment of sexual identity) might be at the root of this disparity because they strain lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons’ abilities to adapt to and function in their everyday environments, increasing risks for poor mental health. 3–8

Extensive research also provides broad evidence that individuals in heterosexual marriages, on average, experience better mental health outcomes than their unmarried counterparts. 9–11 This differential might stem from tangible economic benefits (e.g., access to health insurance) or a heightened sense of relationship stability associated with legal recognition of the marital commitment, the positive effects of intimacy and closeness, as well as from greater emotional support and self-worth conferred to the married. 1

Taken together, these 2 large bodies of work suggest that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons might be uniquely disadvantaged because they endure sexual minority-related stressors and challenges not experienced by heterosexuals, and in most parts of the United States, they are denied access to legal marriage, which potentially could enhance their mental health in the same ways it does for heterosexuals. In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognized that exclusion from legal marriage among sexual minorities contributes to health care disparities in same-sex households, 12 yet very little research has examined the potential mental health benefits of permitting lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons to legally marry someone of the same sex. To date, the best evidence has come from small-scale nonrepresentative studies, which suggest that, like their heterosexual counterparts, sexual minority persons realize psychological benefits from same-sex legal marriage and other types of legally recognized same-sex relationships (e.g., civil unions, registered domestic partnerships [RDPs]). 13,14

Beginning in June 2008, same-sex couples were allowed to legally marry in California. A statewide referendum (Proposition 8) overturned this legal right in November 2008, putting a halt to all new same-sex marriages. In 2010, Proposition 8 was overturned by a US District Court, a decision recently twice affirmed by the US Court of Appeals. As of this writing, the issue is with the US Supreme Court and the status of same-sex marriage in California is in flux: existing same-sex marriages stand, but no new same-sex marriages are legally permitted. Also, since 2000, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons may enter a RDP with a same-sex partner in California. A 2005 law enhanced the status of RDP to include almost all of the state-provided rights and responsibilities of marriage.

This study analyzed population-based data from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to investigate the association between legal marriage and mental health among heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults aged 18 to 70 years, as well as the potential relationship between same-sex marriage and mental health disparities based on sexual orientation. Given the apparent mental health benefits of marriage found in previous research, we hypothesized that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in legal same-sex marriages and partnerships would experience better mental health than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in same-sex legal relationships. Consistent with the previously described findings, we also hypothesized that married heterosexuals would report lower psychological distress than unmarried heterosexuals. Further, we hypothesized that mental health disparities between lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals would be diminished when same-sex relationship status was taken into account, given the tangible and emotional benefits that accrue with legal marriage.

Data were from the 2009 adult CHIS. 15 Conducted by telephone every 2 years, the CHIS is the nation’s largest population-based state health survey. The CHIS has been a leader in telephone survey methodology and employs a multistage sample design with random-digit-dial (RDD) sampling that includes both landline and cellular telephone numbers to enhance coverage. For the landline RDD sample, the state was divided into 56 geographic sampling strata, including 2 counties with subcounty strata, 41 single-county strata, and 3 multicounty strata. Within each stratum, residential telephones were selected, and within each household, 1 adult (aged ≥ 18 years) was randomly selected. A separate RDD sample was drawn of telephone numbers assigned to cellular service. The cell RDD sample was stratified by area code, and 1 adult household member was randomly selected from cell-only households.

The sample size was 47 614 adults. The overall household response rate (a product of the screener response rate, 36.1%, and the extended adult response rate, 49.0%, landline and cellular numbers combined) was 17.7% and was roughly comparable to other large telephone surveys specific to California at around the same time, such as the 2009 California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. 16 RDD response rates have declined in recent years, a trend at least partly caused by the proliferation of telemarketing and telephone screening devices. 17 However, emerging studies show that RDD response rates should not be the sole criteria in rating data quality or survey representativeness because there might be little correlation between response rates and nonresponse bias. 18 CHIS researchers conducted extensive data quality studies to assess methodological issues related to nonresponse and noncoverage biases with CHIS data and consistently found that the data accurately represented California’s household population. 19 Detailed information about CHIS methodology can be found at the CHIS data quality Web site ( http://www.chis.ucla.edu/dataquality.html ).

Adults aged 70 years and younger were asked, “Do you think of yourself as straight or heterosexual, as {gay/gay,lesbian} or homosexual, or bisexual?” The analytic sample for within-group lesbian, gay, and bisexual analysis included those who responded that they were gay, lesbian, homosexual, or bisexual (n = 1166). After the application of sample weights, this number represented 3.15% of the 70-years-and-younger adult California population (weighted n = 777 508). The analytic sample for within-group heterosexual analysis included those who reported they were straight or heterosexual (n = 35 608). After the application of sample weights, this number represented 96.85% of the 70-years-and-younger adult California population. For a small number of cases, respondents reported exclusively engaging in sexual behavior that did not “match” their marital status (i.e., being in a same-sex marriage but having only different-sex partners, n = 12; being in a different-sex marriage but having only same-sex partners, n = 28); these cases were omitted from the analysis. These omissions did not affect the findings presented. Heterosexual RDPs were not assessed in the CHIS. The pooled lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual analysis included 36 774 individuals. Nonheterosexuals who reported being “not sexual,” celibate, or “other” were excluded from the analysis. Transgender identity was not assessed in the CHIS.

Psychological distress.

The dependent variable was nonspecific psychological distress, as measured with a continuous form of the widely used Kessler 6 (K6) screening scale, 20 which asks how often in the past 30 days (responses scored from 0 [none of the time] to 4 [all of the time]) respondents felt nervous, hopeless, restless, fidgety, so depressed that nothing could cheer them up, everything was an effort, and worthless. Responses were summed (possible range = 0–24). The continuous form of the K6 was used rather than the dichotomous form (cutoff score of “13+” = possible serious mental illness) to capture the full range of psychological distress, including subsyndromal symptomatology.

Legal relationship status.

Nonheterosexual respondents were asked, “Are you legally registered as a domestic partner or legally married in California with someone of the same sex?” RDP and same-sex legal marriage responses were mutually exclusive. We referred to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person who was legally married as “same-sex married” to clearly distinguish individuals with same-sex and different-sex spouses. Heterosexual marriage was assessed with the question, “Are you now married, living with a partner in a marriage-like relationship, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married?” (responses were mutually exclusive).

Sociodemographic controls.

Multiple sociodemographic variables that might influence observed findings were controlled in the analysis:

• gender (male or female)
• ethnicity (Asian or Asian Pacific Islander, African American, Hispanic, Non-Hispanic White, and other),
• age (categorized because of its known nonlinear association with psychological distress, such that, on average, distress is high in young adulthood, then decreases, and then increases in old age, 21 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–70 years),
• education (< high school, high school, some college, ≥ college degree),
• whether English was the primary language spoken in the home (yes or no),
• employment status (works now vs not),
• health insurance status (has insurance vs not),
• whether the respondent lives in an urban area (yes or no),
• whether household income was below the 2008 California median household income level of $61 000 (yes or no), 22
• self-rated fair or poor health (yes or no).

Analyses were conducted with the Stata SVY procedure (StataCorp, College Station, TX), which accounts for sample weights and the complex survey sampling design. Associations between relationship status and psychological distress, adjusted for sociodemographic controls, were first assessed with ordinary least-squares SVY regression models (within-group lesbian, gay, and bisexual association, within-group heterosexual association, pooled lesbian, gay, and bisexual–heterosexual association). Adjusted means for psychological distress by relationship status were then assessed with the Stata ANOVALATOR procedure, which provides adjusted pairwise comparisons. Because of multiple comparisons, a P value of .05 was divided by the number of paired comparisons made to determine the significance level.

Sample characteristics of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons (weighted) are shown in Table 1 . Most lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in California were not in a legally recognized same-sex marriage or domestic partnership. The proportion in same-sex marriages (7.13%) was nearly identical to recent US Census Bureau Reports, 23 and the proportion in RDPs was also comparable to recent estimates (12.35%). 24 Slightly more than half of heterosexual adults in California were currently married, similar to recent national estimates. 25

TABLE 1—

Weighted Characteristics of California Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Persons and Heterosexuals Aged 18–70 Years in 2009 by Legal Relationship Status

Note . Neither = neither same-sex married nor RDP; RDP = registered domestic partnership. The unweighted sample sizes were n = 1166 for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and 35 608 for heterosexuals.

In the CHIS lesbian, gay, and bisexual subsample, men outnumbered women, ethnicity and age were roughly comparable to the California population, 26 nearly half had a college degree or more, most spoke English in their homes, were currently employed, had health insurance, and had household incomes below the 2008 California median level. A majority (94.72%) lived in urban areas. About one fifth rated their health as fair or poor. Heterosexuals were roughly similar to lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, with the exception of education (lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were more educated) and English being the primary language spoken at home (lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were more likely to live in homes where English was the primary language).

Comparisons among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who reported being in legal same-sex marriages, RDPs, and neither of these legal arrangements revealed wide variation for some characteristics ( Table 1 ). For example, lesbian or bisexual women were more likely to be in same-sex marriages than gay or bisexual men, whereas gay or bisexual men were more likely to be in RDPs. Among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, non-Hispanic Whites were disproportionately more likely than other ethnicities to be in either type of legally recognized union, as were late middle-aged persons and those with more socioeconomic resources (education, employment, health insurance, income). Such relationship-related disparities were less evident among heterosexuals, although married heterosexuals had more socioeconomic resources than nonmarried heterosexuals.

Association Between Psychological Distress and Relationship Status

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons..

As shown in Table 2 , model 1, same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a same-sex legal relationship. The level of distress among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs was not significantly different than that of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legal relationship. Model 1 also showed that among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, psychological distress was negatively associated with being male, older, and currently employed, whereas it was positively associated with living in a home in which English was the primary language spoken. Model 1 accounted for 16% of the variance in psychological distress.

TABLE 2—

Parameter Estimates (weighted) for Psychological Distress Among Californians Aged 18–70 Years in 2009

Heterosexuals.

Model 2 in Table 2 shows that married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than nonmarried heterosexuals. Model 2 also indicated that among heterosexuals, psychological distress was negatively associated with being Asian or Asian Pacific Islander or Hispanic (compared with being non-Hispanic White), being older, having a high school education or more, and being currently employed. Distress was positively associated with living in an urban area, having a household income lower than the median California household income, and reporting fair or poor health. Model 2 accounted for 12% of the variance in psychological distress.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals pooled.

Model 3 in Table 2 shows that psychological distress was lower among married heterosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals, and same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons than among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship (the omitted reference group). The estimate for same-sex RDP was not significant. The association between the control variables and psychological distress was nearly identical to model 2 (the heterosexual model).

Adjusted Mean Psychological Distress Scores

As shown in Table 3 , adjusted pairwise comparisons (controlling for sociodemographics, statistical significance set at P  < .017 to adjust for 3 comparisons) indicated that psychological distress was significantly higher among persons who were not in any type of same-sex legal union than in those in a same-sex marriage, but not compared with those in an RDP. Differences in mean psychological distress scores between persons in same-sex marriages and RDPs were nonsignificant ( P  > .05).

TABLE 3—

Psychological Distress Scores (Kessler 6) by Legal Relationship Status among Californians Aged 18–70 Years in 2009, Weighted and Adjusted for Sociodemographic Characteristics

Note. RDP = registered domestic partnership.

Adjusted pairwise comparisons (controlling for sociodemographics, statistical significance set at P  < .05 to adjust for 1 comparison) indicated that psychological distress was significantly higher ( P  < .001) among unmarried heterosexuals than among those who were married ( Table 3 ).

The overall mean psychological distress score (adjusted and weighted) for heterosexuals (4.01; SE = 0.10) was significantly ( P  < .001) lower than that for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons (5.25; SE = 0.26), consistent with previous research. 2 As shown in Table 3 , adjusted pairwise comparisons (controlling for sociodemographics, statistical significance set at P  < .005 to adjust for 10 comparisons) indicated that married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in any legalized relationship had the highest psychological distress, a significant difference ( P  < .001). Psychological distress was not significantly distinguishable among same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs, and heterosexuals of any marital status. Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than were lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legal relationships ( P  < .001).

Supplemental Analysis

Because there did not appear to be significant differences in psychological distress between lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages and RDPs, supplemental analyses of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual analytical sample were conducted to test associations between each relationship type and psychological distress when added individually to the adjusted model. Postestimation Wald tests indicated that the association between same-sex marriage and psychological distress was significantly different from 0 ( F [1,79] = 6.98; P  = .01), but this was not the case for the association between same-sex RDP and psychological distress ( F [1,79] = 0.01; P  = .92). Thus, although direct mental health differences between same-sex marriage and RDP were not detected among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, it appears there might be a unique positive mental health association specifically conferred by legal marriage, particularly compared with not being in any type of legally recognized relationship at all.

Findings presented here add to the very small body of work aimed at exploring associations between being in a same-sex legal marriage and mental health among sexual minorities. With data from a population-based sample representative of Californians aged 18 to 70 years, we found results similar to those found in small-scale studies. These data suggested that psychological distress might be lower among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages compared with those not in any type of legally recognized same-sex union. This association was statistically significant even when controlling for myriad sociodemographic characteristics related to mental health.

There was no significant difference in psychological distress between persons in same-sex marriages and RDPs. However, consistent with previous work, 14 supplemental analyses suggested that same-sex marriage might be the more beneficial legal arrangement for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in terms of their mental health. Future studies that explore the mechanisms by which this benefit might arise are needed.

Perhaps most importantly, findings additionally indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in psychological distress between heterosexual individuals and same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs, and that persons in each of these relationship categories had significantly lower distress scores than did lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in any type of legally recognized relationship, net of a range of sociodemographic control variables. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships, legal marriage in particular, thus appeared to have potential to offset mental health disparities between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

Previous research has suggested that the positive association between psychiatric disorders and being lesbian, gay, or bisexual was stronger in states that did not specifically protect sexual minorities from hate crimes or employment discrimination. 27 In addition, it has been shown that rates of psychiatric disorders actually increased among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in states that enacted constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. 28 These associations were hypothesized to stem from social stress derived from institutionalized discrimination, one aspect of sexual minority stress. 8 Our findings were consistent with this work, in that sexual minority stressors, such as stigma, prejudice, internalized homophobia, and identity concealment, 8 might play a role in how same-sex marriage manifests in psychological well-being. Being legally married might negate or “buffer” 29 the mental health impact of these stressors at the individual level and might offset the larger macro-level effects of sanctioned discrimination. Much more research is needed that identifies pathways by which same-sex marriage might affect mental health.

As previously described, we operationalized psychological distress with a continuous version of the K6 to capture the full range of the severity of distress experiences, including subsyndromal symptomatology. The K6 was originally designed to screen for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-4th Edition ( DSM-IV ) serious mental illness, defined as any DSM-IV mental disorder within a particular time frame, with a cutoff score of 13+ signifying possible serious mental illness. 20 Continuous operationalization of the K6 allowed us to examine associations between legal relationship status and a unit change (i.e., frequency of experiencing symptoms) in nonspecific psychological distress rather than comparing persons at the extreme end of the symptom spectrum from the majority of persons who either were asymptomatic or were symptomatic but did not meet diagnostic screening criteria, an approach that discards information about the full distress continuum. When we reran the adjusted within-group lesbian, gay, and bisexual analysis with the K6 dichotomized and made subsequent pairwise comparisons, the proportion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were screened as potentially seriously mentally ill did not differ across relationship status. In the pooled analyses, the proportion of persons who met diagnostic criteria did not significantly differ between heterosexuals, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs, however it did differ between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship. Thus, even when analyses separated individuals who were most likely to experience a diagnosable disorder from those who were not, legal recognition of same-sex relationships still appeared to diminish known mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

Study Limitations

Limitations to this investigation included the cross-sectional nature of the analysis, which precluded definitively establishing the causal directions of the observed associations. Longitudinal studies on the health benefits (or lack thereof) of same-sex marriage are needed to clarify the directionality of findings, in particular, reverse causation and selection effects. Although most longitudinal research suggests that entering into marriage is associated with increases in psychological well-being and decreases in psychological distress among heterosexuals (i.e., no selection effect), the magnitude of this protective effect appears to be smaller than that found in cross-sectional studies, 11 and caution should be used in ascribing a marriage effect to the marital relationship per se. Because the time period during which same-sex couples could marry in California was brief, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in relatively good health might have been most likely and able to take advantage of this narrow window of opportunity, enhancing the possibility of a selection of healthier individuals into same-sex marriage.

There was also the possibility that multiple unobserved confounding variables were responsible for the significant same-sex marriage finding. For example, it could be that unmeasured environmental or personality factors attenuated the association between same-sex marriage and psychological distress. In addition, self-reporting of same-sex marriage is subject to bias, and it was possible that some of the legal same-sex marriages actually reported were not legal marriages, but were “marriage-like” relationships, leading to false-positive reports of legal marriages. Such a bias would suggest that the relationship itself matters more to mental health than the legal status of the relationship. Furthermore, marriage dissolution data (widowhood, separation, divorce) were available for heterosexuals but not for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, precluding us from systematically comparing mental health differentials among subgroups of nonmarried heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Future studies are needed to examine how marriage dissolution and many other confounding variables might be associated with sexual minority mental health. Marriage tenure was not assessed for either heterosexuals or lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. It was also likely that some of the “neither same-sex married nor RDP” individuals were in long-term relationships that had no legal recognition: the CHIS did not differentiate these individuals from other lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, preventing us from partitioning out specific associations for this group.

Conclusions

The findings presented here offer empirical evidence that same-sex marriage might be positively associated with psychological well-being in lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, and that same-sex marriage might also be associated with the mental health disparity between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This finding emerged despite the fact that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages, in California and any US state, do not enjoy the same level of social support or government recognition and benefits that those in different-sex marriages do. Given that same-sex marriage was the better predictor of psychological well-being than same-sex RDP, these findings suggest that potential mental health benefits might incrementally accrue with access to relationships that offer greater degrees of social and legal recognition. Mental health benefits of same-sex marriage might in part be derived from a heightened sense of social inclusion concomitant with the social institution of marriage. 30 Given these results, researchers should continue to examine the potential health benefits of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and re-legalizing same-sex marriage in California. In short, this research showed that same-sex marriage among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in the United States is at least in part a public health concern.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (R. G. W., Principal Investigator). We thank David Grant and Steven P. Wallace for data assistance.

Human Participant Protection

This research was approved by the University of California, Los Angeles, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects.

Namibian court declares laws banning gay sex unconstitutional

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Nyasha Nyaungwa; Writing by Bhargav Acharya; Editing by Alexander Winning and Jan Harvey

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Israel pounds Gaza, killing dozens, as fighting rages

Israeli forces pounded Rafah in southern Gaza on Friday, as well as other areas across the enclave, killing at least 45 Palestinians as troops engaged in close-quarter combat with Hamas militants, residents and Israel's military said.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

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

With the Senate set to take up a bill that would protect same-sex marriage at the federal level, a clear majority of Americans continue to say that the legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society.

About six-in-ten adults (61%) express a positive view of the impact of same-sex marriage being legal, including 36% who say it is very good for society. Roughly four-in-ten have a negative view (37%), with 19% saying it is very bad.

The new survey – which was fielded in October, before the midterm elections – comes as some have questioned whether same-sex marriage will remain legal nationally following the Supreme Court’s June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade , turning abortion laws back to the states.

Pew Research Center asked this question to track public views about the legal status of same-sex marriage. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,098 adults from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Views of the impact of same-sex marriage on society are largely unchanged since 2019. However, there has been a dramatic increase in public support for same-sex marriage over the past two decades. As recently as 2004 , nearly twice as many Americans opposed than favored allowing gay and lesbian people to marry legally; by 2019, public opinion had reversed, with 61% in favor and 31% opposed.

Opinions about same-sex marriage’s impact on society vary widely by age, education and – most starkly – by party and religion.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a largely positive view of the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage: Eight-in-ten say it has been good for society, while 19% say it has been bad. Republicans and Republican leaners are more divided: 43% view the legalization of same-sex marriage positively, 55% negatively.

There are wide ideological differences within both parties. Two-thirds of conservative Republicans (66%) view the impact of same-sex marriage negatively. Nearly the same share of moderate and liberal Republicans (62%) take a positive view.

Among Democrats, liberals overwhelmingly view the legalization of same-sex marriage positively (93%), while a smaller majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (69%) say the same.

Majorities of Asian (70%), White (61%), Hispanic (60%) and Black adults (57%) say the legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society. For the most part, these opinions are little changed since 2019, though the share of Black adults who take a positive view has increased from 50% to 57% over this period. 

There are also large differences by age. Three-quarters of Americans ages 18 to 29 say same-sex marriage being legal is good for society, with about half (52%) saying it is very good. That compares with 63% of those 30 to 49 and about half (52%) of those 50 and older.

Opinions about the effect of same-sex marriage vary widely among religious groups. While 71% of White evangelical Protestants say the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples is bad for society, 62% of White non-evangelical Protestants say it is good. So too do about two-thirds of Catholics (66%) and a much larger majority of religiously unaffiliated adults (82%). In contrast, Black Protestants are closely divided on same-sex marriage: 49% say it is good, while 46% say it is bad.

Among Americans with a bachelor’s degree or more education, seven-in-ten say the legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society, compared with 63% of those with some college experience but no bachelor’s degree. About half of those with a high school diploma or less (51%) say same-sex marriage is very good (26%) or somewhat good (25%) for society, with 45% saying it is somewhat bad (20%) or very bad (24%).

While partisan divides are evident regardless of Americans’ age and educational background, these differences are more modest among younger adults than older people. Younger Republicans express much more positive views of same-sex marriage than older Republicans, but age differences among Democrats are less pronounced.

Among those ages 18 to 29, 83% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans say the legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society. Among adults 50 and older, by comparison, more than twice as many Democrats (78%) as Republicans (34%) say it is good for society.

Educational differences are somewhat wider among Democrats than among Republicans. While about nine-in-ten Democrats with a postgraduate degree (92%) or bachelor’s degree (89%) say same-sex marriage is good for society, about two-thirds of those with a high school education or less (66%) say the same. There is little variation among Republicans by educational attainment.

Note: Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

• LGBTQ Attitudes & Experiences
• Same-Sex Marriage

Gabriel Borelli is a research associate focusing on U.S. politics and policy at Pew Research Center .

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Majority of u.s. catholics express favorable view of pope francis, who are you the art and science of measuring identity, across asia, views of same-sex marriage vary widely, how people around the world view same-sex marriage, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

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 .

© 2024 Pew Research Center