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 marry was radical for the time. In 2004, only 31% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 60% opposed it, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
Much of that opposition was fueled by fears that expanding the definition of marriage beyond the traditional union of a man and a woman would undermine the institution and be destabilizing for families. Rand Corp. researchers decided to find out if those predictions turned out to be true.
A team from the Santa Monica-based think tank spent a year analyzing the data. The result is a 186-page report that should reassure supporters of marriage equality.
“If in the last 20 years there were negative consequences of the decision to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, no one has been able to measure them yet,” he said. Benjamin Karneyassociate behavioral scientist at Rand.
Karney, who is also a social psychologist at UCLA, led the report with Melanie Zaber, Rand labor economist and economic demographer. They spoke to The Times about what they learned.
Does marriage improve people's situation?
Benjamin Karney: On average, yes. Married people experience fewer health problems, live longer, earn more money, and accumulate more wealth than people who marry and divorce or do not marry at all. Married people also experience more stable and positive psychological health, and have sex more frequently than people who are not married.
All of these benefits fall primarily on people who have happy marriages. Unhappy marriage is very, very damaging. But most married people are happy; That's why they stay married.
What prompted you to examine same-sex marriage now?
BK: At the time these policies were changing, there were many arguments on both sides about whether the consequences would be positive or negative. Twenty years is a long time and a lot of research has been done during that time. It seemed like a good time to ask the question: What did What will happen as a result of the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples? So that's one reason.
The second reason is that in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion explicitly said that this Supreme Court should consider reviewing and potentially overturning other decisions, and named the Obergefell v. Hodges of 2015 which legalized Marriage for same-sex couples by name. Since 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 variety 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, 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 that could be observed. There are 20 years of research, 96 studies and no harm.
Does it seem plausible that the results are so one-sided?
BK: I wasn't surprised. There are many good theories in family and relationship science to argue that if rights are extended to a group that has been stigmatized, that group should do better and the majority group should not be affected. In fact, that's what we found.
MZ: I don't find it particularly surprising. When we say there is no damage, that doesn't mean everything will be sunshine and roses; It means sun and roses or nothing. In this case, where the prediction was somewhat negative, then nothing still feels like sunshine and roses.
What kinds of things did these studies measure?
BK: There were three general categories. The largest group looked at results for LGBT people and same-sex couples. The second group focused on children of same-sex parents. And the third bucket was the effect on everyone else.
There was no evidence of damage anywhere.
This is interesting because those who oppose these policy changes predicted very strongly (and very explicitly) that there would be harm. They predicted it before the Supreme Court, arguing that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, the consequences for the country will be negative, serious, inevitable and irreversible.
Same-sex marriage cake toppers are displayed on a shelf in San Francisco.
(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Who benefits most from the legalization of same-sex marriage?
BK: Same-sex couples. Their relationships last longer when they can get married and solidify their commitment. Your income increases. Your mental health improves.
That improvement in mental health extends to LGBT people, whether they are married or not. Even if you are not married, if you are a member of a sexual minority and live in a world that validates same-sex relationships, it alleviates a stressor and has measurable benefits on physical and mental health.
What's behind these improvements?
BK: The health effects appear to operate in part through the extension of employer-provided health insurance to spouses.
The mechanisms of mental health have been described by the theory of minority stress. Living in a society that constantly sends you the message that you are less worthy of equal treatment is stressful, in part because it leads to discrimination. Being the target of discrimination is stressful, and that stress has real physical and mental consequences.
You found 96 studies on gay marriage. Why did you also do his own research?
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, it's great that you have evidence from Massachusetts or Vermont, but New England is not the center of the universe.”
By looking at a broader range of years, we can better capture some of those states that allowed same-sex couples to marry but were not among the first to do so. We have reason to think that 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 that there are no negative impacts and there are some positive ones.
We see an increase in marriage, and that increase is driven not only by remarriage of same-sex couples, but also by an increase in marriage between different-sex couples. That surprised us a little.
What do you think was happening?
MZ: There are a few different mechanisms for this, none of which we can explicitly test.
One could be an alliance. There are people who identify as cisgender heterosexuals, but want to show their alliance, so they delay marriage until everyone can get married.
There are a growing number of people who identify as bisexual in the United States. Even if they marry a different-sex partner, they may be trying to validate their broader identity.
The argument we found most compelling is that the fact that people were clamoring loudly about all the great things that come with marriage made people in the general population say, “Oh, hey, getting married means people can go to visit me in the hospital, and that if I have an accident, I don't worry about who my property goes to and we have more access to health insurance. Talking about it may have made some people realize, “You know, the.” “Marriage is actually very useful.”
BK: If you hear about a restaurant that everyone is trying to get into, you will want to eat at that restaurant.
MZ: That's a great way to put it!
Do you think this research will persuade those who were worried that same-sex marriage would have dire consequences?
MZ: That's our goal: to get the evidence to the public so policymakers can make informed decisions.
BK: I would like to believe it. At the time those arguments were made, they were speculative. People tried 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.
