Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States

Abstract

Since 1997, 19 states and the District of Columbia have extended legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples. The form of legal recognition has varied to include marriage, civil unions, state-registered domestic partnerships, and limited-rights statuses, such as reciprocal beneficiary relationships. These varied forms of recognition entail different packages of legal rights and responsibilities for the couples entering them. This study provides a demographic analysis of the same-sex couples who marry, enter civil unions, or register their partnership in these states, covering the full range of legal statuses.

Appendix 1: Statutory Notes and Data Notes by State

State	Current legal recognition type(s)	Eligibility and timing	Data notes explaining adjustments
California	Domestic partnership	California first passed a domestic partnership statute in 1999, effective January 1, 2000. This statute included very limited rights for same-sex couples and some different-sex couples (at least one member of a different-sex couple must be age 62 or older). As of January 2002, about two dozen additional rights were added. As of January 2005, domestic partnership was expanded to include nearly all rights and responsibilities of marriage. Same-sex couples could marry for less than 5 months in California beginning June 16, 2008, after a California Supreme Court ruling. That ruling was overturned through a ballot initiative (Proposition 8), halting the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples as of November 5, 2008. Marriages that took place from June 16, 2008 through November 5, 2008 are still valid.	Based on prior research, we estimate that 5% of registered domestic partnerships are non-resident couples and that 5% of domestic partnerships are different-sex couples.a Therefore, we estimate that 90% of all domestic partnerships registered in California are for resident same-sex couples. We estimate that 18,000 same-sex couples married in California in 2008. Data from the City and County of San Francisco suggest that 19% of same-sex couples marrying there were from other states, so we use that to estimate that 15,000 same-sex couples who married in California in 2008 were residentsb.
	Provides same state-level rights and responsibilities as afforded to married spouses
	Marriage (from June 16, 2008 to Nov 5, 2008 only)
Colorado	Designated beneficiary agreements	Colorado began offering designated beneficiary agreements on July 1, 2009. These agreements may be entered into by same-sex and different-sex couples, and by any two individuals of legal age. There is a residency requirement. The agreement must be filed in the county in which at least one party resides.	Data are kept at the county level and are not provided in aggregate figures by the state. Online lists of those who have entered these agreements were downloaded for the three largest counties in Colorado (Denver, Arapahoe, and El Paso). Different-sex versus same-sex couples were determined by analyzing the names of those who had entered these agreements. This analysis determined that about 10% of all agreements filed were for different-sex couplesc.
	Provide limited rights and benefits, such as estate planning, end-of-life decisions, inheritance, protections related to health care and medical emergencies, and certain financial protections
Connecticut	Marriage	Connecticut offered civil unions for same-sex couples from October 2005 through September 2010. No civil unions were granted in Connecticut after October 1, 2010. All civil unions were automatically converted to marriages as of that date. Marriage for same-sex couples went into effect November 12, 2008.	We utilized a state-provided database of all marriages performed (same-sex and different-sex) from November 2008 through September 2010. The database provided a variety of data, including residency, age, and gender. All figures in this report on Connecticut marriages come directly from the database. Data on civil unions did not include residency of couples. We assume that 100% of civil unions were for Connecticut residents. We make this assumption due to the availability of civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples in other nearby states at the time Connecticut civil unions were offered. Based on the experiences of other states, we assume couples are no longer likely to travel to a state to enter any non-marital form of legal recognitiond.
Delaware	Civil unions	Civil unions for same-sex couples were signed into law on May 11, 2011. The law will go into effect on January 1, 2012.	Delaware civil unions will become available on a future date as of this writing, so no data have been collected.
District of Columbia	Marriage	The District of Columbia passed legislation establishing a domestic partnership registry in 1992, but the U.S. Congress prohibited enactment of the law until 2002. The rights and responsibilities associated with domestic partnership have been gradually expanded since 2002 and as of April 4, 2006 include almost all that are afforded to married spouses. Domestic partnerships are available to same-sex and different-sex couples. Marriage for same-sex couples went into effect on March 3, 2010. Domestic partnerships are still available and are unchanged by the opening of marriage to same-sex couples.	Data on domestic partnerships by gender of the couples was provided to us by the District from 2002 through 2007. These data establish that 84% of domestic partnerships are for same-sex couples. Prior research suggests that 99% of all domestic partnerships are for DC residents.e DC does not keep records on the gender of those who marry. A representative from the DC Superior Court estimated there were about 3,500 marriages of same-sex couples in the first year since enactment.f We have no further information on the residency or other characteristics of these couples.
	Domestic partnership
	Provides almost all rights and responsibilities in the District as afforded to married spouses
Hawaiì	Civil unions	The civil union bill was signed into law on February 23, 2011. It will go into effect on January 1, 2012, and will make civil unions available to both same-sex and different-sex couples. Reciprocal beneficiary registration has been available since 1997 and is limited to those pairs of individuals who cannot marry in Hawaiì (including same-sex couples and blood relatives of same or different sexes).	Hawaiì civil unions will become available on a future date, so no data exist as of this writing. Due to reciprocal beneficiary registration only being available to those who cannot marry, we assume that 100% of all such agreements are for same-sex couples. Data provided to us by the state for 1997 through 2007 show that about 80% of these agreements are for Hawaiì residents.
	Reciprocal beneficiary relationship
	Provides limited rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation, decision-making in health care, rights of inheritance, and health insurance and pension benefits for state employees
Illinois	Civil unions	The civil union bill was signed into law on January 31, 2011 and went into effect on June 1, 2011. Civil unions are available to both same-sex and different-sex couples.	According to research conducted by the organization Equality Illinois, 1,618 civil union licenses were issued in the state in June 2011. Due to the effective date of the civil unions law being so close to the date of this writing, data from Illinois have not been included in this report.
Iowa	Marriage	Marriage was opened to same-sex couples as the result of an Iowa Supreme Court ruling on April 3, 2009. Marriage licenses began being issued to same-sex couples on April 27, 2009.	Data on marriages provided to us by the state are broken down by residency and gender. Data covered roughly the first 11 months since same-sex couples began to marry (4/27/09 through 3/31/10), and show that 2,020 couples have married. We projected out to a full year by adding the average of the first 3 months of 2010, or 79 couples. This gave us a total of 2,099 marriages in the first year. We then applied the residency rate (41%) found in the first 11 months to our projected full-year count. Notably, the Iowa data include 1,015 couples who did not state their gender, so these couples could not be classified as same-sex or different-sex and are only included in this report as explicitly noted in the text.
Maine	Domestic partnership	Domestic partnership registration became available to both same-sex and different-sex couples on July 30, 2004. There is a residency requirement. Partners must be domiciled together in the state for at least 12 months prior to registering their domestic partnership.	A knowledgeable observer made a rough estimate that 50% of domestic partnership registrations in Maine are for same-sex couples. This estimate is similar to findings in Washington for couples who are 62+ in age (45% are different-sex) and our estimate for all Nevada domestic partnership registrations (45% are different sex).
	Provides limited rights and benefits, such as in the areas of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, and protection from abuse
Maryland	Domestic partnership	Domestic partnerships became available to both same-sex and different-sex couples on July 1, 2008. Maryland does not maintain a domestic partnership registry. Domestic partnership is available to same-sex and different-sex couples.	Maryland does not maintain a domestic partnership registry, so no data were collected for this state.
	Provides limited rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation, end-of-life and healthcare decision-making, and the ability to add or remove a partner from a housing deed without penalty
Massachusetts	Marriage	Marriage for same-sex couples was restricted to couples who reside or intend to reside in Massachusetts from the date same-sex couples first were permitted to marry, May 17, 2004, through July 31, 2008. The same-sex-couple-specific residency requirement was rescinded as of August 1, 2008g.	Based on prior research, we estimate that 46% of couples who married from August 2008 through the end of 2009 were residents.h We divided the figure obtained in that prior research for marriages of non-residents, 2,063, by the total number of marriages of same-sex couples from August 1, 2008 through September 31, 2009, or 3,803 marriages. This yielded 54% non-resident marriages. We therefore assume that 54% of all marriages that occurred in 2009 were of non-residents. This 54% figure is similar to the rate of non-resident marriages in Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, which is about 60%. We assume marriages prior to August 2008 were only of residents or those who became residents to marry.
New Hampshire	Marriage	New Hampshire offered civil unions for same-sex couples from January 2008 through December 2009. Marriage for same-sex couples went into effect January 1, 2010. As of January 1, 2010, civil unions are no longer granted in the state. Couples in civil unions had until January 1, 2011, to convert their civil union into a marriage, dissolve the civil union, or annul the civil union. On January 1, 2011, all remaining civil unions were converted to marriages.	New Hampshire did not provide us with data on residency for marriages. Based on the experiences of Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, we estimate that 40% of marriages of same-sex couples in New Hampshire were of residents. We assume that 100% of civil unions were of New Hampshire residents. We make this assumption as described for the state of Connecticut.
Nevada	Domestic partnership	Nevada’s registry of domestic partnerships became available to same-sex and different-sex couples on October 1, 2009. Different-sex couples in Nevada may register their domestic partnerships without limitation based on the age of the partners.	Based on prior research, we estimate that 55% of Nevada’s domestic partnership registrations are for same-sex couples.i This estimate was based on the experience of Oregon, which has a similarly broad domestic partnership status but for same-sex couples only. Twenty-two percent of same-sex couples in Oregon registered domestic partnerships in the first year they could do so. We assume the same percentage of Nevada’s same-sex couples registered domestic partnerships in the first year, constituting 55% of the total domestic partnerships in Nevada. This comports with observed findings from Washington for couples where at least one member of the couple is of 62 years of age or older (also 55% same-sex couples). The state of Nevada did not provide us with data on residency. We assume that 100% are Nevada residents. We make this assumption as described for the state of Connecticut.
	Provides same state-level rights and responsibilities as afforded to married spouses
New Jersey	Civil unions	New Jersey enacted a domestic partnership registry for same-sex couples and different-sex couples in which both partners are aged 62 or older, in 2004. Civil unions were established for same-sex couples on February 19, 2007. As of that date, only couples where both members are age 62 or older (both same-sex and different-sex) are allowed to register as domestic partners and a residency requirement for domestic partnership went into effect. Domestic partners must share a common residence in New Jersey or at least one partner must be in the New Jersey state-administered retirement system.	New Jersey did not provide us with data on whether couples in domestic partnerships are same-sex or different sex after the domestic partnership policy changed on February 19, 2007. Prior to this time, 98% of all domestic partnerships were for same-sex couples, according to data provided by the state. After February 19, 2007, we estimate that 55% of domestic partnerships were for same-sex couples, which is our estimate for the state of Washington. We estimate in both time periods that 99% of domestic partnerships are for residents, which is based on the experience of Washington state. We assume that 100% of civil unions are for New Jersey residents. We make this assumption as described for the state of Connecticut.
	Domestic partnership
	Provides limited rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation, healthcare decision-making, income and transfer tax protections, and health insurance benefits
New York	Marriage	The bill opening marriage to same-sex couples was signed into law on June 24, 2011, and the law took effect immediately.	Because the effective date of the marriage law was so close to the date of this report, no data were available from New York. The New York Times reported that at least 1,200 marriage licenses for same-sex couples had been issued in the first 2 days after marriage licenses were available for same-sex couples.j
Oregon	Domestic partnership	The registered domestic partnership law went into effect on February 4, 2008. The status is limited to same-sex couples only. There is a residency requirement. One partner must be an Oregon resident.	Because there is a residency requirement and only same-sex couples are allowed to register their domestic partnerships in Oregon, no adjustments were needed on residency or percent of same-sex versus different-sex couples.
	Provides same state-level rights and responsibilities as afforded to married spouses
Rhode Island	Civil unions	The bill creating civil unions for same-sex couples was signed into law on July 2, 2011 and went into effect immediately.	Because the effective date of the civil unions law was so close to the date of this writing, we have not included any data from Rhode Island in this report.
Vermont	Marriage	Vermont offered civil unions for same-sex from July 2000 through August 2009. Marriage for same-sex couples went into effect September 1, 2009. While civil unions that were entered into at that time continue to be recognized, no new civil unions have been granted after September 1, 2009. Vermont civil unions do not automatically convert to marriages. Couples in a civil union must go through the formal process of marriage in order to be considered married in Vermont.	Only same-sex couples were allowed to enter civil unions in Vermont. The state provided us with data on residency for both civil unions (18% resident) and marriage (39% resident).
Washington	Domestic partnership	After the original domestic partnership law went into effect on June 22, 2007, two later bills expanded the rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partners. The first, effective June 12, 2008, added 170 different rights and responsibilities. The second went into effect on December 3, 2009, and expanded domestic partnerships to include all of the rights and responsibilities of spouses under state law. Domestic partnerships are for same-sex couples and different-sex couples in which at least one member is age 62 or older.	We utilized a state-provided database of all registered domestic partnerships (same-sex and different-sex) filed from July 23, 2007, through March 1, 2011. The database provided a variety of data, including residency and age. The database did not provide the gender of the domestic partners. Different-sex versus same-sex couples were determined by analyzing the names of the partners. This analysis determined that overall about 11% of domestic partnerships were for different-sex couples (9% different-sex before December 3, 2009 and 16% different-sex after December 3, 2009). When only looking at couples who have one partner age 62 or older, 45% of couples are different-sex.c All figures in this report for Washington domestic partnerships come directly from the state-provided database.
	Provides same state-level rights and responsibilities as afforded to married spouses
Wisconsin	Domestic partnership	Domestic partnerships went into effect on August 1, 2009 and are limited to same-sex couples only. There is a residency requirement. Partners must have resided in the Wisconsin county where they will file their partnership for 30 days prior to filing.	Because there is a residency requirement and only same-sex couples are allowed to enter domestic partnerships in Wisconsin, no estimates were needed on residency or percent of same-sex versus different-sex couples.
	Provides limited rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation, inheritance, probate, real estate, healthcare decision-making, and end-of-life decision-making

1. ^a See supra note 28
2. ^b See supra note 12
3. ^c Note on name-matching procedures for the states of Colorado and Washington:
4. The states of Colorado and Washington did not specify the sex of those couples entering designated beneficiary agreements or domestic partnerships. Both states allow same-sex and different-sex couples to enter these legally-recognized relationships. In order to determine whether a couple is different-sex or same-sex, as well as if the same-sex couples are male or female couples, we analyzed the names of the individuals listed and determined whether individuals were most likely to be male or female based on their names. Due to the small number of couples entering designated beneficiary agreements in Colorado, we completed that analysis by manually reviewing each name for each individual listed and coding whether the individual is male or female. When a sex could not be determined by analyzing the name, such as in the case of a gender-neutral name, we used internet research to make a more precise determination: (1) we consulted online searchable databases of names by gender, such as “Behind the Name” or “Babyz Names”; (2) we entered the name into Google Images and analyzed the images related to the name; and (3) we searched for the actual person through Google to see if we could determine that person’s gender through search results. If internet research did not provide a clear determination of sex, the person was coded as having an unknown sex
5. In the case of Washington, the database of names from the state was large enough to prohibit manual coding of each individual. We utilized lists of male and female names and their percent frequency from the 1990 Census, available at http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/names_files.html. We combined the male and female lists to generate a probability that a particular name is female. When we could not determine an individual’s sex based on the probability female, such as in cases where the name did not appear on the Census rolls or the probability female was around 50% for both the first and middle name, we first made a determination that those couples where both were under age 62 must be same-sex couples because of Washington state law. Therefore, when both partners were less than 62 years of age, if one partner’s sex was determined and the other’s was not, the known sex of one partner was applied to the partner whose sex could not be established with Census data. For those couples where one partner was 62 years of age or older and had an undetermined gender, we analyzed the individual names and conducted internet research, such as described for the state of Colorado
6. ^dWe did not consider Vermont civil unions, California domestic partnerships, or Hawaiì’s reciprocal beneficiary agreements when making this assumption. Since they were the first jurisdictions to offer their respective legal statuses, they are considered outliers due to the initial pent-up demand for these statuses
7. ^e See supra note 28
8. ^fMorello and Thomas-Lester (2011)
9. ^gAn exception to the residency rule was made in 2006 for same-sex couples from Rhode Island. Another exception to the residency rule was made in 2007 for same-sex couples from New Mexico. For a more detailed narrative on the court proceedings that led to these exceptions, see Grossman (2006)
10. ^hBadgett (2010). See footnote #93
11. ⁱHerman et al. (2011). A detailed description of the Nevada estimate can be found on page 5
12. ^j See supra note 31