Cohabitation and Domestic Partnerships

Cohabitation is a common choice for people in the 21st century, even while many are morally or religiously opposed to the idea. The trend is not limited to the United States nor is it limited to younger individuals; yet in the U.S. it is legally limited to hetero-sexual couples except in California and Massachusetts. Domestic partnerships and civil unions are more commonly accepted in the U.S. and offer recognition of committed partners, in some cases allocating spousal rights to partners. However, many of those rights, as well as those offered to cohabitating heterosexuals, are weak in comparison to those offered to married couples.

Family & Relationships

Overview

With about fifty percent of all marriages ending in divorce, it seems reasonable that if couples live together before marrying the marriage might last longer. However, the concept of cohabitation remains controversial, and many people are opposed to cohabitation on the basis of moral or religious reasons. Yet, whether or not one agrees with the concept, it is not a passing fad. Indeed, according to the US Census Bureau, over three million people were unmarried but living together in 1991 (cited in Kammeyer, et al, 1994, p. 375). That number rose to almost 8 million in 2012 (US Census Bureau, 2013). Some of those people have married and divorced; others have separated and moved on to different relationships; others still are living happily either as married couples or as those who simply chose not to marry. And the remaining group is cohabitating because they cannot marry; such is the case for same-sex couples in states that have not legalized same-sex marriage.

A study from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1995 (2002b) showed that almost three-quarters of the people who got married in 2001 did so after beginning their lives together by cohabitating (cited in Weston, Qu & Vaus, 2003, p. 4). In 2013, a study published in the US National Health Statistics Reports reported that 48 percent of women interviewed between 2006-10 had cohabited with a partner before marriage (Copen, Daniels, & Mosher, 2013). And, depending on which research you believe, cohabitation is either good or really bad for the future of the relationship. Some information about cohabitation is readily available while other data is not. For example, it is commonly reported that many couples who live together before marrying end up divorced shortly after the official event. What is less known is that if a married couple (who cohabitated first) remains together longer than seven years or if a man and woman only cohabitate with the person they later marry, their chance of having a successful marriage is the same as for those people who experience direct marriages, that is they don't live together first (Stritof & Stritof, 2008).

Marriage Success after Cohabitation

Jay Teachman, Professor of Sociology at Western Washington University, has conducted several research studies attempting to identify whether or not premarital cohabitation is linked to marriage dissolution, as many researchers have indicated. To his credit, Professor Teachman is willing to note that his own prior research--and that of others focusing on the same topic--has been limited. In his 2003 article, Teachman describes the two explanations provided by researchers in the past to describe the difference between cohabitators and non-cohabitors:

The first thesis … is selectivity … A number of authors have argued that people who cohabit before marriage possess different characteristics compared with those who do not cohabit, and these characteristics are tied positively to the risk of divorce. The characteristics … include less commitment to marriage as a permanent institution, acceptance of divorce as an appropriate means to end a poor relationship, an emphasis on individualism, poor relationship skills, and so on … The second thesis… focuses on the experience of cohabitation itself …That is, it is argued that there is a causal effect of having lived with someone outside of marriage that cannot otherwise be attributed to differences on other, preexisting characteristics (Teachman, 2003, p. 445).

According to Teachman, there's just "something" about living with someone else that makes people not survive marriage in later years. Or so researchers thought. One of Teachman's research endeavors (2003) studied different characteristics, allowing that the previous explanations were limited in scope. Instead of focusing on selectivity or causation, Teachman looked at the correlation between premarital intercourse and premarital cohabitation to explain marriage success. Using statistics collected from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) in 1995, Teachman examined survey responses from over 6,500 US women who had been married for the first time between the years 1970 and 1995.

Dr. Teachman notes that "neither premarital intercourse nor premarital cohabitation, if limited to a woman's husband, is linked to the subsequent risk of marital disruption" (2003). When examined independently, premarital intercourse does not increase the likelihood of divorce if a woman marries the man with whom she has had the premarital intercourse. The same is true for cohabitation; if a woman marries the man with whom she has previously lived, she has a good chance of marriage stability. Conversely, the more sexual relationships or cohabitation experiences a woman has--that do not lead to marriage--the more likely she is to experience an unsuccessful marriage when she does take that official step. To clarify, " [i] t is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption" (Teachman, 2003, p. 454).

The 1995 version of NSFG did not collect data on men, and that is why Teachman's research focused on the relationships of women. The professor is quick to note that he believes men would offer responses similar to those reported by women. In addition, Teachman notes another limitation:

[T]his study does not provide any information that allows us to better determine whether the effect of having multiple premarital relationships is based on differences on preexisting characteristics that are tied to the risk of divorce or whether having multiple relationships generates environments where relationship skills or attitudes and values about the permanency of marriage are somehow altered (p. 454).

It may be entirely impossible to determine these things. It could be that preliminary relationships create the characteristics that later manifest into those common with marriage discontent. Nevertheless, many people chose the indirect approach.

Some Demographics of Cohabitation

According to Kammeyer, Ritzer & Yetman (1994), that approach is not limited to the United States. In Sweden, it is estimated that almost all couples who get married live together first (p. 375). In addition, in light of the numerous couples (both same-sex and opposite-sex) cohabitating in England and Wales, a law commission addressed in a report the legal ramifications of a separating cohabiting couple. Probert (2007, Conclusion) notes that while "the proposed reforms would not confer on cohabitants the same rights to which married couples or civil partners are entitled," the incidence of cohabitation is high enough that the commission agreed it had to create some kind of legislation in light of a relationship dissolving.

Cohabitation is not a situation limited to young people either. Calasanti & Kiecolt (2007) note that many people over the age of sixty-five are considering the concept as well; however, cohabitation is a trend practiced by those who have lost a spouse to death more so than for those who have experienced divorce (p. 13). "In 2005, among people age 65 and older, cohabitors constituted 1 percent of men and .5 percent of women" (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, as cited in Calasanti & Kiecolt, 2007, p. 15). While seemingly small, those numbers constituted 367,870 and 183,935 people, respectively--over a half of a million people. While more common than in the past, Brown, Lee & Bulanda (2006) note that cohabitating is not necessarily good for people over sixty-five: "Cohabitors are less likely than remarried people to own a home and to have health insurance. They also score lower on social relationships, as measured by religiousness and having friends and kin nearby, and they consume more alcohol" (as cited in Calasanti & Kiecolt, 2007, p. 10).

What is disconcerting to some researchers and those who disapprove of cohabitation is that the current popularity of cohabitation may be long-lasting and that rather than get married, people across the world will simply live together instead (Kammeyer, et al, 1994, p. 375). Furthermore, people who do get married do so at later ages when compared to statistics of the 1950s (Ahlburg & DeVita, 1992, as cited in Kammeyer, et al, 1994, p. 375). While this latter statistic may resemble a negative tendency, it may actually be positive. As people age, they are more likely to become emotionally mature, financially stable, and universally independent when compared to those who marry at younger ages, like many couples in the 1970s and 1980s a time when one financial provider per family could support the entire household.

Further Insights

Domestic Partnerships & the Law

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into legislation the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Act defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It also points out that while each state can create its own law regarding marriages, those that do not make their own laws do not have to enforce the independent laws of the states that do. In other words, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, any couple married in those states is not considered married when they are in any one of the other forty-eight states in America. Many people believe that discrimination against gay couples was written into federal law in this way.

Table 1: What's the Difference?

BENEFIT MARRIAGE CIVIL UNIONS NO MARITAL STATUS AVAILABLE Portability of rights Automatically recognized in all 50 states Recognition not guaranteed outside the state that grants it Some of the documents named below must be carried at all times to ensure they are enforced Medical Decisions/ Emergencies A spouse or family member may make decisions for an incompetent or disabled person unless contrary written instructions exist, and can generally visit their partner in the hospital Partner's right to visitation and medical decision-making may not be recognized out of state A health care proxy is required to convey decision-making authority Gift and Property Transfer tax May make unlimited transfers and gifts to each other without paying taxes Large gifts and transfers are subject to federal tax Must pay federal tax and state tax in many states for large gifts and transfers Inheritance Automatic right to inherit without a will; inheritance not taxed at the state or federal level Not taxed at the state level; fully taxed at the federal level; not automatic outside granting state No automatic inheritance; must be designated in will and is fully taxable; without a will, relationship is invisible Income tax Can file taxes jointly, which works to the advantage of couples when one earns much more than the other, but creates a penalty when their incomes are similar Can file only state returns jointly; federal returns must be filed as single Must file individually Social Security and Veteran Death Benefits Married people receive Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse None None Divorce Divorce provides legal structure for couples to dissolve their marriages and divide property equitably No such system can be guaranteed for the dissolution of civil unions outside of the state where the union is granted Relationship contract dictating property division in advance may be enforced upon dissolution of relationship Spousal Support Criminal penalties are imposed on spouses who abandon a child or a spouse Outside granting state, partners may have no legal obligation to support their partner Unmarried partners have no legal obligation to support their partner Immigration Benefits US citizens and legal permanent residents can sponsor their spouse and other family members for immigration None None Cost to Establish License fees - under $100 License fees - under $100 Each document requires attorney fees Can total thousands of dollars for piecemeal protection in limited areas Religious Freedom Religious institutions are free to decide what marriages to perform or recognize Religious institutions are free to decide what civil unions to perform or recognize Some religions perform commitment ceremonies; convey no legal protection The Word Marriage is the ultimate expression of love and commitment; people understand and respect it Civil unions are unfamiliar; people don't understand them or know how to treat them None (GLAD, 2013)

In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional because it deprived some spouses equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution (Liptak, 2013). This ruling allowed spouses in same-sex marriages to receive federal protections such as health insurance, retirement savings, Social Security, tax benefits, and veterans' benefits. However the rest of the law still stands and individual states do not have to recognize lawful same-sex marriages from other states (GLAAD, 2013).

Prior to 2004, there was no law that officially recognized a marriage between two people of the same gender. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts created such a law. In May 2008, California did the same. The Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and California decided that any law prohibiting the marriage between same-gender couples was unconstitutional. Unlike Massachusetts, however, California does not require that a couple's state of residence consider the marriage legal. For example, Oregon does not recognize same-gender marriages (or civil unions), but if a couple living in Oregon were to marry in California and then go back home, the marriage remains legal in California. On the other hand, if a couple were to travel from Oregon to Massachusetts to marry, the marriage would only be legal if the couple remained in Massachusetts.

In November 2008, however, California voters passed Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that was created by opponents of same-sex marriage and that defined opposite-sex marriage as the only valid form of marriage in the state, effectively banning same-sex marriage in the state. A federal court ruled that California's new amendment was unconstitutional in February 2012. In June 2013 US Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal standing for an appeal, which allowed same-sex marriage to resume in the state, but did not judge the case on its merits (Leff, 2012; Mears, 2013).

As of November 2013, sixteen states (including Hawaii and Illinois) and the District of Columbia (Levs, Roberts, & Stark, 2013) have approved same-sex marriage. Illinois passed marriage equality in November 2013, but the law does not take effect until June 1, 2014 (Garcia & Long, 2013). Colorado allows civil unions, while Oregon, Nevada, and Wisconsin offer domestic partnerships that give same-sex couples some but definitely not all of the rights automatically offered to those in heterosexual marriages. New Mexico does not have any laws that prohibit or allow same-sex marriage; some counties in the state have granted marriage licenses to same sex couples. Same-sex marriage is banned in all other states, with some states adding specific amendments to their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriages (Garcia & Long, 2013; Sullivan, 2013; Levs, Roberts, & Stark, 2013).

The difference between provisions for married couples and those for civil unions is immense. Further, the difference is even greater between those who are married or are in civil unions when compared to cohabitants (both same-sex and heterosexual) with no official partnership status. The following chart, taken from the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) website, shows the differences between the rights offered to these three groups.

Avery et al. (2007) note that while possibly limiting in nature, any laws recognizing same-sex relationships indicate a more positive view of homosexual relationships than was once demonstrated in the United States. In fact, in a Gallup poll conducted in 2004, "49 percent of respondents agreed that same-gender couples who enter a civil union should have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple" (Moore & Carroll, 2004, as cited in Avery et al., 2007, par. 3).

Viewpoints

The Consequences of Cohabitation

Schneider (2007) summarizes the results of several studies which indicated that the negative consequences of cohabitation outweigh anything positive.

* Women suffer disproportionately: Cohabiting women often end up with the responsibilities of marriage - particularly when it comes to caring for children - without the legal protection, … while contributing more than 70 percent of the relationship's income.

* Greater risk of STD: Men in cohabiting relationships are four times more likely to be unfaithful than husbands … The rate of STD among cohabiting couples is six times higher than among married.

* Greater risk of substance abuse and psychiatric problems: A UCLA survey of 130 published studies found that marriages preceded by cohabitation were more prone to drug and alcohol problems …Depression is three times more likely in cohabiting couples than among married couples.

* Higher poverty rates: Cohabitors who never marry have 78 percent less wealth than the continuously married; co-habitors who have been divorced or widowed once have 68 percent less wealth.

* Children suffer: The poverty rate among children of co-habiting couples is five times greater than the rate among children in married-couple households … Compared to children of married biological parents, children who are 12-17 years old with cohabiting parents are six times more likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems Likewise, adolescents from cohabiting households are 122 percent more likely to be expelled from school and 90 percent more likely to have a low GPA.

* Society pays: The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with two million individuals in federal and state prisons and local jails. In 1980 the figure was just over 500,000 … Seventy percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions are from fatherless homes … Three-fourths of children involved in criminal activity were from cohabiting households.

* Cohabitation increases the risk of abuse, violence, and murder: Abuse of children: rates of serious abuse are lowest in intact families; six times higher in stepfamilies; 14 times higher in always-single-mother families; 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend who is not the biological father … Abuse of women: compared to a married woman, a cohabiting woman is three times more likely to experience physical aggression … and nine times more likely to be murdered. This data is consistent with similar data on children (Schneider, 2007, pp. 36-37).

The Impact of Discrimination

Laws that include definitions of who can and cannot marry restrict the ability for some to have what is freely given to everyone else. In a country created on the basis of freedom, such laws seem contrary. Not only do they restrict freedom, they restrict the ability to be healthy, to own property, and to raise children based on a person's sexual orientation. It is important to consider the real issue with regard to domestic partnerships. "Equal rights for lesbians and gay men may be the greatest civil rights battle of the twenty-first century" (Avery et al., 2007).

The following excerpt is from a position paper on the sanctity of marriage published by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church:

We believe marriage is a gift from God for the blessing of men, women and children and for the good of society. However, given the present practice of cohabitation outside of marriage, the prevalence of same-sex unions and the disintegration of marriages in Western culture, we of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church offer the following Biblical principles relative to the sanctity of the institution of marriage. … Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and between the participants and God (Malachi 2:14-16). It is therefore more than a temporary agreement of convenience, a contract or a well-intentioned promise. (Evangelical Presbyterian Church, 2004)

Cohabitation, even with the negative implications noted by Schneider, is a way of life for many people for a variety of reasons. Cohabitating provides a choice for people who believe it is an option. It is a possible compromise for some, a possible form of stability for others, but an option, nonetheless. Regardless of age, a person can choose to forego legal marriage, and it is clear by statistics presented here that such options are being pursued.

Terms & Concepts

Civil Union: A legally recognized relationship between non-heterosexual couples; generally affords members of the relationship the same protections as marriage (health benefits, inheritance, joint custody of children, etc.).

Cohabitation: Living together as a couple without being married.

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Law introduced in 1996 and struck down in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman - ensuring that same-sex couples cannot legally marry;

established that one state cannot uphold the law of another state (if state #1 does not recognize same-sex marriage but state #2 does, state #1 is not required to honor the terms of the marriage).

Direct Marriages: Those that begin by way of a marriage commitment/relationship.

Domestic Partnership: A relationship between two people who are not married but who live together.

Homosexuality: Being attracted to someone of the same sex (gender).

Indirect Marriages: Those that began as cohabitation relationships.

Same-sex Marriage: Marriage between two people of the same

sex (gender).

Sanctity: Something carrying such value that it is considered deserving of the utmost respect ("the sanctity of marriage").

Bibliography

About DOMA watch.org. (2008). Retrieved August 16, 2008 from DOMA watch website: http://www.domawatch.org/ about/index.html

Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvak, S., Montero, D. & Wydra, M. (2007). America's changing attitudes toward homosexuality, civil unions, and same-gender marriage: 1977-2004. Social Work, 52 , 71-79. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& db=sih&AN=24348120&site=ehost-live

Calasanti, T. & Kiecolt, K. J. (2007). Diversity among late-life couples. Generations, 31 , 10-17. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& db=sih&AN=28039271&site=ehost-live

Copen C., Daniels, K., & Mosher W. (2013). First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports 64. Retrieved November 7, 2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/ nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr064.pdf

Evangelical Presbyterian Church (2004). Position paper on the sanctity of marriage. Retrieved November 12, 2013 from http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/position-papers/ sanctity-of-marriage/

Levs, J., Roberts, A., & Stark, C. (2013). With Hawaii and Illinois, U.S. crosses a same-sex marriage mark. Retrieved November 19, 2013 from http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/ politics/hawaii-same-sex-marriage/

Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (2008). Retrieved August 16, 2008 from DOMA watch website: http://www.domawatch.org/ about/federaldoma.html

Garcia, M. & Long, R. (2013). Lawmakers approve gay marriage in Illinois. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http:// articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-05/news/ chi-gay-marriage-illinois-20131105%5F1%5Fillinois-senate-gay-marriage-gay-lawmakers

Garnett, R. W., Perry, M. J., & DeGirolami, M. O. (2013). The Court & marriage. Commonweal, 140, 10-15. Retrieved November 6, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebsco-host.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=89776952

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). (2006). What's the difference? Marriage: Equality-Civil Unions: Separate and unequal. Retrieved August 19, 2008 from GLAD website: http://www.glad.org/rights/ Marriage%5Fv%5FCU%5Fchart.pdf

GLAAD (2013). Frequently asked questions: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Retrieved November 12, 2013 from http://www.glaad.org/marriage/doma

Kammeyer, K. C. W, Ritzer, G. & Yetman, N. R. (1994). Sociology: Experiencing Changing Societies (6th ed.). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Leff, L. (2012). Prop 8: California's same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/ Latest-News-Wires/2012/0207/ Prop.-8-California-s-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional

Mears, B. (2013). Supreme Court dismisses California's Proposition 8 appeal. CNN Politics. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/ scotus-prop-8

Liptak, A. (2013). Supreme Court bolsters gay marriage with two major rulings. New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/ politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html

Probert, R. J. (2007). A review of cohabitation: The financial consequences of relationship breakdown, Law Com. No. 307 (HMSO 2007). Family Law Quarterly, 41 , 521-536. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=29419764&site=ehost-live

Schneider, P. A., II. (2007). Cohabitation: Ten facts. New Oxford Review, 74, 36-37 Retrieved August 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=a9h&AN=26314417&site=ehost-live

Stritof, S. & Stritof, B. (2008). Cohabitation facts and statistics. About.com: Marriage. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from About.com website: http://marriage.about.com/od/ cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm

Sullivan, S. (2013). The 14 states where gay marriage is legal, in one map. Washington Post. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/ wp/2013/10/22/the-14-states-where-gay-marriage-is-legalin-one-map/

Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 , 444-455. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9841747&site=ehost-live

United States Census Bureau (2006). National and State Population Estimates: Annual Population Estimates 2000-2006. Retrieved August 17, 2008 from U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/ NST-ann-est2006.html

United States Census Bureau (2013). About 8 million unmarried couples live together. Retrieved November 7, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/family/2013 0906%5Fcspan%5Ffamily%5F5.pdf

Weston, R., Qu, L. & de Vaus, D. (2003). Premarital cohabitation and marital stability. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Paper presented at the HILDA Conference, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 13 March 2003: Retrieved August 12, 2008 from website: http:// marriage.about.com/gi/dy namic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn =marriage&cdn=people&tm=131&gps=240%5F963 %5F1004%5F535&f=10&tt=13&bt=1&bts=1&z u=http%3A//melbourneins titute.com/hilda/conf/conf 2003/ pdffiles/RWeston.pdf

Suggested Reading

Bennett, N., Blanc, A. & Bloom, D. (1988). Commitment and the modern union: Assessing the link between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital instability. American Sociological Review, 53 127-138. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& db=sih&AN=14789901&site=ehost-live

Blossfeld, H., Hamerle, A. & Mayer, K. (1989). Event history analysis: Statistical application in the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Booth, A., and D. Johnson. (1988). Premarital cohabitation and marital success. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 255-272.

Brown, S., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58 , 668-678. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& db=sih&AN=9610084714&site=ehost-live

Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=sih&AN=3062542&site=ehost-live

Cherlin, A. J. (2013). Health, marriage, and same-sex partnerships. Journal Of Health & Social Behavior, 54, 64-66. Retrieved November 12, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebsco-host.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85987498

Gentile, A. (2006). Courts weigh benefits for domestic partners. American City & County, 121 , 14-16. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20930271&site=ehost-live

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815-825.

Herrick, R., & Thomas, S. (2002). Gays and lesbians in local races: A study of electoral viability. Journal of Homosexuality, 42 , 103-126. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=6918069&site=ehost-live

Hershberger, S. L. (1997). A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research, 34 , 212-222. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebsco-host.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9709072617&site=ehost-live

Hicks, S., & Wise, S. (2000). Lesbian and gay issues in social work. In M. Davies (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopaedia of social work pp. 193-195). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L., Ehrhardt, A. A., Rosen, L. R., Gruen, R. S., Veridiano, N. P., Vann, F. H., & Neuwalder, H. F. (1995). Prenatal estrogens and the development of homosexual orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31, 12-21.

National Center for Health Statistics. (1998). Sample design, sampling weights, imputation, and variance estimates in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Phillips, J. A. & Sweeney, M. M. (2003). Premarital Cohabitation and the Risk of Marital Disruption Among White, Black, and Mexican American. California Center for Population Research: On-Line Working Paper Series. University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved, August 12, 2008 from CCPR website: http://www.ccpr.ucla.edu/ ccprwpseries/ccpr-037-03.pdf

Schoen, R. (1992). First unions and the stability of first marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 281-284. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9206082081&site=ehost-live

Skinner, K., Bahr, S., Crane, D. & Call, V. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, and remarriage. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 74-90.

Smock, P. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 , 1-20. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3780362&site=ehost-live

Tanfer, K. (1987). Patterns of premarital cohabitation among never-married women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49 , 483-497. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5273963&site=ehost-live

Teachman, J. (1983). Early marriage, premarital fertility, and marital dissolution. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 105-126.

Teachman, J. (1985). Historical and subgroup variations in the association between marriage and first childbirth. Journal of Family History, 10 , 379-401.

Teachman, J. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography, 39, 331-351.

Teachman, J. & Polonko, K. (1990). Cohabitation and marital stability in the United States. Social Forces, 69, 207-220. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9102181889&site=ehost-live

Teachman, J. & Tedrow, L. (1998, March). Evaluation of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth : Report prepared for the National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, DC.

Thomson, E. & Colella, U. (1992). Cohabitation and marital stability: Quality or commitment? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 259-267.

Thornton, A., Axinn, W. & Hill, D. (1992). Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 628-651. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& db=sih&AN=9302120332&site=ehost-live

Traiman, L. (2008). A brief history of domestic partnerships. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 15 , 23-24. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33072983&site=ehost-live

Veniegas, R. C., & Conley, T. D. (2000, Summer). Biological research on women's sexual orientations: Evaluating the scientific evidence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 267-282. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3632802&site=ehost-live

Van Der Werf, M. (2007). Domestic-partner benefits become more common. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54 , A27. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27229523&site=ehost-live

Wald, K. D., Rienzo, B. A., & Button, J.W. (2002). Sexual orientation and education politics: Gay and lesbian representation in American schools. Journal of Homosexuality, 42 , 145-168. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=7551835&site=ehost-live

White, L. (1990). Determinants of divorce: A review of research in the eighties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 904-912.

Whitley, B. E., Jr., & ÆgisdÓttir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42 , 947-967.

Wright, E. (2004, January). The gaying of America: 2003 in review. Lesbian News, p. 21.

Yang, A. S. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 477-507.