Advertisement

Sexuality Research & Social Policy

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 90–101 | Cite as

State recognition of same-sex relationships and preparations for end of life among lesbian and gay boomers

  • Brian de Vries
  • Anne M. Mason
  • Jean Quam
  • Kimberly Acquaviva
Same-Sex Marriage Supplement

Abstract

The authors compared 793 nonheterosexual baby boomers on their relationship status (single or in a civil union) and the state in which they lived (did or did not recognize same-sex civil unions). Analyses revealed patterns attributable to participants’ relationship status, state recognition, and the combination of these variables. Findings showed that state recognition of same-sex unions has an impact not only on nonheterosexual individuals’ current quality of life but also on their future plans and emotional responses to those plans. A lack of legal recognition requires nonheterosexuals to take greater action to ensure that their end-of-life wishes will be carried out, and may lead to their having increased fears about late life.

Key words

civil union baby boomers nonheterosexual legal recognition end-of-life issues 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barker, J. C., & Mitteness, L. S. (1990). Invisible care-givers in the spotlight: Non-kin caregivers of frail older adults. In J. F. Gubrium & A. Sankar (Eds.),The home care experience: Ethnography and policy (pp. 101–127). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, J., Herdt, G., & de Vries, B. (2006). Social support in the lives of lesbians and gay men at midlife and beyond.Sexuality Research & Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 3(2), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedrick, B. R. (1997, January 31). Letter from the Office of the General Counsel, United States General Accounting Office, to Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Retrieved November 4, 2008, fromhttp://www.gao. gov/archive/l997/og97016.pdf Google Scholar
  4. Bergling, T. (2004).Reeling in the years: Gay men’s perspective on age and ageism. New York: Haworth.Google Scholar
  5. Bryant, A. S., & Demian. (1994). Relationship characteristics of American gay and lesbian couples: Findings from a national survey.Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 1(2), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr, D., & Khodyakov, D. (2007). End-of-life health care planning among young-old adults: An assessment of psychosocial influences.The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, S135-S141.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, N. H. (2007). Advance directives: Know what you want; get what you need.Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82, 1460–1462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. (1996). Good care of the dying patient.Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Vries, B. (2006). Home at the end of the rainbow: Supportive housing for LGBT elders.Generations, 29(4), 64–69.Google Scholar
  10. de Vries, B. (2007). LGBT couples in later life: A study in diversity.Generations, 31(3), 75–80.Google Scholar
  11. de Vries, B., Blando, J. A., Southard, P., & Bubeck, C. (2001). The times of our lives. In G. Kenyon, P. Clark, & B. de Vries (Eds.),Narrative gerontology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 137–158). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. de Vries, B., & Megathlin, D. (in press). The meaning of friends for gay men and lesbians in the second half of life.Journal of GLBT Family Studies. Google Scholar
  13. Doligosa, F., Jr. (2004, July 30). Maine domestic partner registry starts today.Portland Press Herald, p. B2.Google Scholar
  14. Essoyan, S. (1997, December 23). Hawaii’s domestic-partner law a bust; ambiguity blamed.Los Angeles Times, p. A5.Google Scholar
  15. Fahrenthold, D. A. (2005, October 2). Connecticut’s first same-sex unions proceed civilly.The Washington Post, p. A03.Google Scholar
  16. Gates, G. J., Badgett, M. V. L., & Ho, D. (2008, July).Marriage, registration and dissolution by same-sex couples in the U.S. [Working paper]. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. (n.d.).Guidelines for care of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. Retrieved October 29, 2008, fromhttp:// ce54.citysoft.com/ data/n 0001/resources/live/ GLMA%20guidelines%202006%20FINAL.pdf Google Scholar
  18. Grossman, J. (2004, January 13). The New Jersey domestic partnership law, its formal recognition of same-sex couples, and how it differs from other states’ approaches. Retrieved October 4, 2008. fromhttp:// writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040113.html Google Scholar
  19. Herek, G. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective.American Psychologist, 61, 607–621.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. High, D. M. (1994). Families’ roles in advance directives.Hastings Center Report, 24(6), S16-S18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hopp, F. (2000). Preferences for surrogate decision makers, informal communication and advance directives among community-dwelling elders: Results from a national study.The Gerontologist, 40, 449–457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hsu, S. S. (2001, November 8). Senate approves D.C. funding of domestic-partners law; vote moves the city closer to implementing 1992 measure.The Washington Post, p. B09.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhl, D. (2003).What dying people want: Practical wisdom for the end of life. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  24. Lochhead, C. (2000, April 26). Gay unions win final vote in Vermont.San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence.Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris, J. M., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors and outcomes of outness among lesbian and bisexual women.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 61–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nardi, P. M. (1999).Gay men’s friendships: Invincible communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Neugarten, B. L. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities of psychological issues into adult life.Human Development, 12, 121–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oswald, R. F., Goldberg, A., Kuvalanka, K., & Clausell, E. (2008). Structural and moral commitment among same-sex couples: Relationship duration, religiosity, and parental status.Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 411–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples. (1995).Partners national survey of lesbian & gay couples: Summary of results. Retrieved September 19, 2008, fromhttp://buddybuddy.com/survey.html Google Scholar
  31. Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 cc (a) (1990).Google Scholar
  32. Pew Research Center. (2006, January 5).Strong public support for right to die: More Americans discussing—and planning—end-of-life treatment. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from Pew Research Center for the People & the Press website:http://people-press. org/report/266/strong-public-support-for-right-to-dieGoogle Scholar
  33. Quam, J. K., & Whitford, G. S. (1992). Adaptation and age-related expectations of older gay and lesbian adults.The Gerontologist, 32, 367–374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Riggle, E. D. B., & Rostosky, S. S. (2007). The consequences of marriage policy for same-sex couples’ well-being. In C. Rimmerman & C. Wilcox (Eds.),The politics of same-sex marriage (pp. 65–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., & Horne, S. (2009). Marriage amendments and lesbian, gay, and bisexual citizens in the 2006 election.Sexuality Research & Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 6(1), 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., Prather, R. A., & Hamrin, R. (2005). The execution of legal documents by sexual minority individuals.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 138–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Dudley, M., & Wright, M. L. C. (2006). Relational commitment: A qualitative analysis of same-sex couples’ conversations.Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoenborn, C. A. (2004, December 15).Marital status and health: United States, 1999–2002. Retrieved October 29, 2008, fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/ad/ad351.pdf Google Scholar
  39. Simon, M. (2003, September 20). Davis signs bill giving partners rights.San Francisco Chronicle, p. A15.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). No. 53. Marital status of the population by sex and age: 2003.Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004–2005. Retrieved November 4, 2008, fromhttp://www.census.gov/ prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf Google Scholar
  41. Von Drehle, D. (2003, November 19). Gay marriage is a right, Massachusetts court rules.The Washington Post, p. A01.Google Scholar
  42. Weston, K. (1991).Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, D. R., Neighbors, H. W., & Jackson, J. S. (2003). Racial/ethnic discrimination and health: Findings from community studies.American Journal of Public Health, 93, 200–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian de Vries
    • 1
  • Anne M. Mason
    • 2
  • Jean Quam
    • 3
  • Kimberly Acquaviva
    • 4
  1. 1.Gerontology ProgramSan Francisco State UniversitySan Francisco
  2. 2.Public Research InstituteSan Francisco State UniversitySan Francisco
  3. 3.School of Social Work, College of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis
  4. 4.Department of Nursing EducationThe George Washington UniversityWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations