Conceived and designed time series analysis: Obtained and prepared secondary data: Marriage benefits both individuals and societies, and is a fundamental determinant of health.
Until recently sex couples have been excluded from legally recognized marriage in the United States. Recent debate
Closeted heterosexual civil unions legalization of same sex marriage has highlighted for anti-same sex marriage advocates and policy makers a concern that allowing same sex couples to marry will lead to a decrease in opposite sex marriages.
Our objective is to model state trends in opposite sex marriage rates by implementation of same sex marriages and other same sex unions. Marriage data were obtained for all fifty states plus the District of Columbia from through As these marriage rates are non-stationary, a generalized error correction model was used to estimate long run and short run effects of same sex marriages and strong and weak same sex unions on rates of opposite sex marriage. We found that there were no significant long-run or short run effects of same sex marriages or of strong or weak same sex unions on rates of opposite sex marriage.
A deleterious effect on rates of opposite sex marriage has been argued to be a motivating factor for both the withholding and the elimination of existing rights of same sex couples to marry by policy makers—including presiding justices of current litigation over the rights of same sex couples to legally marry.
Such claims do not appear credible in the face of the existing evidence, and we conclude that rates of opposite sex marriages are not affected Closeted heterosexual civil unions legalization of same sex civil unions or same sex marriages.
Marriage has many values to individuals and societies. The codification of marriage into U. Federal
Closeted heterosexual civil unions alone provides over a thousand conditions in which Closeted heterosexual civil unions couples are treated differently than non-married couples.
While some disadvantages may result to married couples relative to unmarried couples in these laws—as when there are married couple penalty provisions in the tax code—most of these laws provide substantive benefits to married couples relative to Closeted heterosexual civil unions couples . Marriage is well understood as a basic determinant of the health of adults  and their children .
Married individuals are less likely than non-married individuals to report their health as fair or poor, less likely to suffer from physical ailments or report poor psychological health, and across the lifespan report fewer health ailments .
Marriage is associated with greater life satisfaction and improved mental health . Until recently same sex couples in the United States have been excluded from legally recognized marriage. Thirty states have passed state DOMAs and statute restrictions on marriage . In most states, same sex couples are still excluded from marriage and all same sex couples are excluded from the benefits Closeted heterosexual civil unions marriage.
Massachusetts became the first state to allow same sex marriages on May 17, following the ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, Same sex marriages were allowed in California between June 17th, and November 4th, during which time approximately 18, couples were married .
In November ofCA voters passed Proposition 8  defining marriage as one man and one woman. Feb 7,the 18, CA same sex marriage licenses issued in remain valid Strauss v. Horton,46 Cal. InVermont became the first state to allow civil unions for same sex couples Closeted heterosexual civil unions a supreme court ruling that marriage benefits could not be restricted to opposite sex couples Baker v. Anti-same sex marriage lawmakers, advocates, and journalists have raised concerns over the social effects of legalizing same sex marriage.
One such use of language has
Closeted heterosexual civil unions same sex marriage as literally harmful to opposite sex marriage: The argument that same sex marriage literally destroys opposite sex marriages translates directly to the question of what has happened to rates of opposite sex marriage in states that allow same sex marriage as compared to other states which do not?
A similar question has been posed in the academic arena with respect to opposite sex marriage rates in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and the Netherlands, and no significant change in opposite sex marriage and divorce rates following enactment of same sex marriage laws was found . The academic literature quantitatively assessing the effect of same sex marriage laws on rates of opposite sex marriage in the U. Despite the argument that legalizing same sex marriage will decrease the rates of opposite sex marriage, some opposite sex couples in the U.
Heterosexual and bisexual individuals and opposite sex couples across the country have pledged to boycott marriage until it is available to all by joining the National Marriage Boycott, started after the passage of Proposition 8 . The movement has been joined by churches as well who have stopped signing marriage licenses in support of marriage equality .
That some opposite sex couples will not marry unless same sex marriages are lawful suggests, contrary to the prognostications of some opponents of same sex marriage, that a probable increase in marriage rates over time follow the legalization of same sex marriage. The fact that some opposite sex couples are postponing marriage until it is legal also for same sex couples implies that there may also be a limited period of increase in opposite Closeted heterosexual civil unions marriages Closeted heterosexual civil unions enactment of same sex marriage laws.
A helpful anonymous reviewer of this article Closeted heterosexual civil unions that same sex marriage laws could be expected to have two kinds of effects rates of opposite sex
Closeted heterosexual civil unions. Because by legitimizing same sex relationships, same sex marriage laws could Closeted heterosexual civil unions reduce the number of homosexuals living closeted lives and entering into opposite sex marriages, such laws might both contribute to decreased numbers of new opposite sex marriages, but also reduce the number of opposite sex marriages likely to end in divorce because the marriage was undertaken to keep up heterosexual appearance by a homosexual participant.
Therefore caution must be taken about conflating causes of state-level rates of opposite sex marriage with causes of individual-level or couple-level participation opposite sex marriage. We aim to test the claims that rates of opposite sex marriage will change as a result of same sex marriage or strong or weak same sex union laws.
Our primary formal hypothesis is twofold: These Closeted heterosexual civil unions hypotheses are accompanied by four parallel secondary hypotheses for comparable short-term and long-term effects following implementation Closeted heterosexual civil unions strong same sex union laws providing most or all of the benefits of marriage excepting the term marriage, and for weak same sex union laws providing a small subset of the benefits of marriage.
We model marriage rates in the thirteen states plus the District of Columbia where same sex marriage or strong or weak same sex union laws were implemented before relative to rates in the remaining states.
We used the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals marriage rate figure for because NCHS marriage figures from and are identical to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals figures for those same years .
Mid-year July, 1 estimates of the U. Census Bureau Population Estimates historical data by state http: The total number of marriages in each study state were adjusted downward by the corresponding number of same sex marriages  —  appropriate to each year from enactment to Because California did not track same sex marriages inwe used the widely-reported figure of 18, same sex marriages in California during . Marriage rates were calculated as all control states marriages minus the total number of reported same sex marriages i.
The sample size was Data for state same sex marriage, and strong and weak same sex union laws were taken from public legislative and court records see Data S1. In each year, same sex marriage and union laws were separately encoded in each state with a proportion representing how much of that year the law was in effect.
For example, Massachusetts implemented same sex marriage on May 17,so during the first year following enactment the same sex marriage
Closeted heterosexual civil unions for this state had the value 0.
A multiplicative interaction term for same sex marriages and strong same sex unions to capture those occasions when both Closeted heterosexual civil unions were in force simultaneously. Marriage data were missing for California in and for Oklahoma for — The portion
Closeted heterosexual civil unions missing marriage data was 0.
We accounted for increased uncertainty in our estimates due to data missingness using bootstrap estimation maximization multiple imputation methods developed for missing time series data with amelie package version 1.
See File S1 for further details. The Im-Pesaran-Shin test for unit root with a single lag and subtracting cross-sectional means  failed to reject the Closeted heterosexual civil unions hypothesis that all states contain unit roots both with time trend and without.
We modeled differences in opposite sex marriage rates by differences in their enactment of same sex marriage laws and strong and weak same sex union laws. Because marriage rates are near-integrated, stationary models Closeted heterosexual civil unions change in marriage rates cannot Closeted heterosexual civil unions Closeted heterosexual civil unions estimates .
Instead, change in marriage rates in year and state was fit using a single-equation generalized error correction model GECM  equation 2permitting inference about the short term and long term effects on opposite sex marriage rates of same sex marriage and union laws.
The interaction term,is stationary see discussion of the homogeneity of the error correction process in the Closeted heterosexual civil unions. The random intercept term,was permitted to vary by state, both to reflect the fact that states have different average changes in marriage rates at equilibrium i.
The parameters in 2 provide different possible interpretations of our hypotheses in the form of short and long term effects of same sex marriage and strong and weak same sex
Closeted heterosexual civil unions laws on opposite sex marriage rates. Short run instantaneous effects are given by, and and, for same sex marriages concurrent with strong same sex unions, by.
Short run lagged effects for example, for Closeted heterosexual civil unions in the absence of concurrent strong same Closeted heterosexual civil unions union laws are given byand for same sex marriages concurrent with strong same sex unions by. long run effects for example, for marriage in the absence of concurrent strong same sex Closeted heterosexual civil unions laws are given byand for same sex marriages concurrent with same sex unions by.
We estimated the model in equation 2 for all fifty states the District of Columbia in order to evaluate the short and long Closeted heterosexual civil unions effects of same sex marriage and union laws against opposite sex marriage rates in control states using the Closeted heterosexual civil unions command in Stata version Estimates and standard errors for long Closeted heterosexual civil unions effects, lagged short run effects and the instantaneous short run combined effect of same sex marriages contemporaneous
Closeted heterosexual civil unions strong same sex unions were calculated using the delta method using the nlcom command in Stata.
This finding holds even for very
Closeted heterosexual civil unions values of. Of course absence of evidence, is not the same thing as evidence of absence . Therefore we also performed equivalence hypothesis tests on each of the dynamic effects reported in Table 1 by posing as null hypotheses differences between the reported effects and zero within a given tolerance,deciding whether to reject them in favor of alternative hypotheses of effects within the range by using uniformly most powerful tests of equivalence .
We employed and report results for liberal Closeted heterosexual civil unions, strict and very strict Closeted heterosexual civil unions values is measured in units ofsee, for example, page 16 of . The results of the equivalence tests Table 2 were unambiguous: Thus, we found that adult rates of opposite sex marriage
Closeted heterosexual civil unions states implementing same sex marriage laws, both with and without contemporaneous strong same sex union laws, were equivalent to rates in states with no such laws, and we find that any differences appear to due to chance alone, as reflected in very wide confidence intervals around the predicted differences in states implementing same sex marriage laws Figure 1.
Figure S1 in File S1 shows graphs for all states with Closeted heterosexual civil unions same sex marriage or same sex union laws. The raw model parameter estimates and standard errors from 2 are presented in Table S2 in File S1. Solid black lines represent our modeled marriages in each year and state, and dashed black lines project opposite sex marriages if same sex marriage laws had not been enacted in each state and year. California licensed same sex marriages in Connecticut enacted a same sex marriage law in Iowa enacted a same sex marriage law in Massachusetts enacted a same sex marriage law in Vermont Closeted heterosexual civil unions a same sex marriage law in We found that state rates of opposite sex marriage in the U.
We found no evidence of an increase in state-level opposite sex marriage rates corresponding to a first year effect of same sex marriage, contradicting the marriage equality hypothesis. Indeed, per our equivalence tests, we found evidence of an absence of any effects.
Our analysis allows inference into changes in
Closeted heterosexual civil unions sex marriage rates by year and state, but we cannot readily translate this inference into relationships between opposite sex couple-level marriage decisions and state-level policies without committing the ecological fallacy .
Such a study could also examine the psychological effects of anticipated changes to marriage law on marriage behavior. The question of whether states ought to legally provide same sex couples with the legal status of marriage, or a related, though less regarded and less beneficial status of same sex union cannot be answered solely in terms of the effect on Closeted heterosexual civil unions sex marriages.
However, a deleterious effect on rates of state rates of opposite sex marriage has been argued to be a motivating factor for both the withholding and the elimination of existing rights of same sex couples to marry by policy makers—including presiding justices of current litigation over same sex couples rights to legally marry.
Such claims do not appear credible in the face of the existing evidence. We began by framing marriage as a social determinant of health.
Marriage is an important social resource for the health of Closeted heterosexual civil unions opposite sex and same sex couples, and their children. If rates of opposite sex marriage are threatened by same sex marriage, then part of the societal measure of that threat is the limiting of a
Closeted heterosexual civil unions resource for the health of opposite sex couple-based families through, for example, pension
Closeted heterosexual civil unions, hospital visitation rights, immigration rights, child support, medical benefits due married partners, affordable housing Closeted heterosexual civil unions, etc.
This view is not supported by our findings.
MORE: Que es heterosexualismo