|
Interstate study
looks at same-sex relationships
(July
2006 Issue)
By Pamela Berard
A first of its kind study in the United States compared same-sex
couples who in 2004 got married in Massachusetts, had civil unions
in Vermont or formed domestic partnerships in California.
The Interstate Project research team consisted of Sondra E. Solomon,
Ph.D., University of Vermont; Esther D. Rothblum, Ph.D., San Diego
State University; and Kimberly F. Balsam, Ph.D., University of Washington.
More than 900 questionnaires were returned. Because couples do
not need to be Vermont residents to be joined in civil unions in
that state, 80 percent of couples who have civil unions there are
from out of state. Therefore, the Interstate Study offers a national
sample. Researchers wanted to see if there are any differences between
same-sex couples who are married from those who have other legal
relationships.
From a legal perspective, couples in all three states have approximately
the same rights. They receive all or nearly all of the benefits
given to their heterosexual marriage counterparts, but at the state
level only. Rothblum and Solomon say those benefits are limited;
the "real" benefits of heterosexual marriage are at the federal
level, according to the researchers.
"They say there are over 1,000 civil benefits to marriage at the
federal level. Those are being denied," Rothblum says, citing benefits
such as Social Security, inheritance or the filing of federal income
taxes.
"I think the difference is largely symbolic because same-sex marriage
or domestic partnership or civil unions are pretty much symbolic,"
Rothblum says. "There's very little you actually get legally. Most
benefits you get are federal (in heterosexual unions)."
Benefits at the state level include car insurance, parenting and
medical care issues and dispensation of property.
The study determined that female couples were younger (42 years
on average) than male couples (46). The findings also indicated
that male couples wait longer to get into legalized relationships
than do women.
More than 80% of couples in California and Massachusetts and more
than 90% of couples in Vermont identified as white. "I am surprised
that there were so few people of color, particularly for states
like Massachusetts and California … because the prevalence of same-sex
individuals are probably the same," Solomon says. "Now, whether
or not they are able to come out and live comfortably in their communities
is another matter altogether. That may speak more to cultural acceptance."
Overall, couples in all three states had very high levels of education
with Massachusetts couples having the highest.
The majority of couples owned their own home in both partners'
names. Couples also generally had joint bank accounts and shared
childcare, expenses and housework, which is different from what
researchers found with heterosexual couples, where women tend to
do more housework and men pay for more items, according to the study.
More than 95% of participants were registered to vote, "and about
95 percent voted in the last election. That's huge," Rothblum says.
"Even though gays and lesbians are a small portion of the population,
obviously they are way overrepresented in the voting population,"
she says.
In terms of political affiliation, 83% of men are Democrats, 5%
are Republicans and 12% are Independent. Among women, 77% are Democrats,
4% are Republicans and 19% are Independent.
Couples from Massachusetts rate themselves as more politically
liberal and also as more active feminists than those from California
or Vermont. There were no state differences in how active couples
were in the gay/lesbian/bisexual movement.
"The couples in Massachusetts were more politically liberal and
more feminist. These are all blue states, so I thought that was
kind of interesting," Rothblum says.
Solomon adds that she would characterize Vermont as a progressive
state and more independent than liberal.
"But clearly these are folks in all three states who are grounded
in principals of social justice and equality and fairness," she
says. "This is not necessarily a liberal issue. It's a human rights
issue and a social justice issue. To think of this as a liberal
issue is really misguided."
|
