“Never in Our Lifetime”: Legal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Long-Term Relationships*

Recent historical context of legal same-sex marriage

Legal steps toward changing marriage laws to include same-sex couples began in 1993 with legal challenges at the state level in Hawaii. This challenge failed and was soon followed by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 (2000) that defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman and supports states’ rights to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage across state lines. In 1999, the Vermont state court upheld the rights of same-sex couples to equal benefits, resulting in legal protections for civil unions. In 2001, seven gay and lesbian couples brought suit in Massachusetts for the right to legally marry, and in a series of decisions, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution allowed same-sex marriage and that civil unions were not constitutionally equivalent to marriage (Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 2003). Concurrent with data collection for this study during the first year of legalization, interest groups attempted to appeal the ruling. These efforts failed in 2007 and a petition amendment cannot be revisited until 2012. As of this writing, legal same-sex marriage in the United States has only been established in Massachusetts and in the countries of Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain.

Timing of sexual identity development

Researchers such as Troiden (1989) have suggested stage-sequential models of sexual identity development that follow a progression from recognition of same-sex attractions, to confusion and experimentation, to self-identification, and finally commitment. However, more recent empirical work (Floyd & Stein, 2002) suggests that trajectories vary in sequence, which appears to be related to context rather than length of time being out. Using a life course perspective, Floyd and Bakeman (2006) found significant effects of age and calendar year of first self-identification on sequence and timing of coming-out milestones. Self-identification in adolescence marked a quicker trajectory of milestones, and self-identification in the more recent past, concurrent with greater acceptance of gays and lesbians, was associated with a greater openness. Savin-Williams and Diamond (2000) found gender differences in the context, timing, and sequence of milestones with men having earlier experience of most milestones.

Linked lives of same-sex couples and their extended families

Historical context and experience link the lives of family members in such a way that the “misfortune of one member is shared through relationships” (Elder, 1998, p. 3). Adverse contexts in which some relationships exist are receiving greater attention in research investigating marital quality and the effects of stress (Story & Bradbury, 2004), financial strain (Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999), and exposure to racial discrimination (Murry, Brown, Brody, Cutrona, & Simons, 2001). To further extend the concept of adverse contexts of relationships, we argue that homophobia is a particular type of discrimination that acts as a threat to the relational health of couples (Connolly, 2004). Day-to-day experience of support for lesbian identity was found to be positively associated with life satisfaction and self-esteem, whereas devaluation of identity was negatively associated with psychological well-being (Beals & Peplau, 2005). Homophobia and heterosexism are in large measure sanctioned by many religious and political groups (Hicks & Lee, 2006), even though limited government protections exist, varying from state to state. Experiences of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation may be perpetrated by family members and mark a break with family (Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, & Hatton, 2007), and that hardship is shared within the relationship by virtue of linked lives.

Green (2004) described a framework of risks to the development of same-sex relationships that includes: “(1) homophobia (external and internal); (2) a lack of a normative and legal template for same-sex couples; and (3) lower levels of family support” (p. 290). Commitment demonstrated by same-sex couples in long-term relationships such as living together and buying property jointly, having children, taking advantage of partnership benefits offered by employers, having commitment ceremonies, or even celebrating anniversaries requires a high level of being out. With the exception of Massachusetts, and the growing number of northeastern states that have passed laws to allow civil unions (Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire), couples who seek community acknowledgment of their relationship must seal their commitment through public or legal means, or both, other than marriage or civil union, such as powers of attorney or health care proxies, or extralegal commitment ceremonies that provide no legal protections for the relationship. The degree of perceived lack of family support for an individual and his or her partner may be accurate or exaggerated, but fear of testing that reality can cause a strain on a relationship (Jordan & Deluty, 2000). Being out has been documented as key maintenance behavior in gay and lesbian relationships, unique to same-sex couples in addition to other behaviors in common with heterosexual couples (Haas & Stafford, 1998), reflecting an important aspect of linked lives for this population.

Same-sex couple relationship quality and choices: Temporal and biographic context

Although the historical and social context of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) individuals has become more open and accepting since the start of the gay rights movement (Avery et al., 2007; Hicks & Lee, 2006), prejudice persists to varying degrees of risk. Ultimately, individuals have human agency to make choices about engaging in and seeking recognition of same-sex relationships. Reviews of research on same-sex relationships highlight much of the overlap that exists in relationship processes compared to heterosexual couples (Herek, 2006). Longitudinal studies comparing heterosexual and same-sex couples found similarities in relationship quality, but same-sex couples reported fewer barriers to leaving relationships and were found to be at greater risk for terminating relationships (Kurdek, 2000). Comparative observational research satisfaction and stability for same-sex couples are related to the same emotional qualities (e.g., positive interaction and empathy) as for heterosexual couples (Gottman et al., 2003). Managing conflicts while fostering intimate communication was found to predict relationship satisfaction and stability for both heterosexual and same-sex couples in long-term relationships (Mackey et al., 2004).

With the first legalization of same-sex marriage taking place in the Netherlands in 2001, research on this phenomenon is beginning to emerge. Alderson’s (2004) phenomenological study of same-sex marriage included interviews from a Canadian and U.S. sample where over half were politically active in pushing for legalization of marriage in their home country and participants were married, planning to marry, or registered as domestic partners. Todosijevic, Rothblum, and Solomon (2005) examined relationship satisfaction, affect, and lesbian- and gay-related stressors for a representative sample of same-sex couples who had had civil unions in Vermont in the first year the law had taken effect. Age similarities within gay male couples and age differences within lesbian couples were positively related to satisfaction, as was positive affectivity; lesbian couples experienced stress related to family rejection because of sexual orientation, whereas gay male couples experienced more stress related to HIV/AIDS and violence or harassment. Limitations of these studies include unanimous support and desire for marriage by participants, thus suggesting the need for research with couples who have made a variety of choices. The results of Lannutti’s (2005) Internet-based study demonstrated wide variation in LGBT community meaning-making of same-sex marriage, citing both support for marriage equality and critique and conflicts over marriage as a goal. Lannutti argued that same-sex marriage is at once a structural and cultural external force and a product of the relationship itself. This duality may diminish with time but will likely remain a strong factor influencing decision making.

Context of the current study

The research on sexual identity development and on same-sex couples summarized in the preceding sections focused primarily on the experiences of middle-income White individuals and couples. The lack of diversity in LGBT research samples in general has been noted as a critical limitation (Patterson, 2000). Although alternative methodological approaches have been suggested to enhance generalizability (Rothblum, Factor, & Aaron, 2002), little is known about how race, class, generational cohort, or political ideology, or all, might influence the formation and development of same-sex relationships. Despite our commitment and best efforts at recruitment of individuals across a range of backgrounds, we were unable to yield a sample of sufficient diversity to fully address this gap in the literature. However, we were able to include a number of individuals and couples from non-White and working-class backgrounds. Their experiences, both homogenous and mixed with respect to race, ethnicity, class, and generation, provide some insight into the interplay among history, sociocultural context, temporality, and biography that influence the relationship trajectories of same-sex couples.

Study design and participants

We investigated a subset of couples in long-term relationships who were part of a larger mixed-methods study of 51 couples. The larger study broadly examined the effects of the Massachusetts legislation that legalized same-sex marriage and included questionnaire and semistructured interview data collected within a year of legalization. Descriptive comparisons were conducted for married and unmarried couples, who were found to be quite similar on key variables related to relationships and families, such as length of relationship, family size, and socioeconomic status (Same-Sex Marriage Study Group, 2005). Couples who had been together 20 years or more were included in this analysis, yielding four lesbian and five gay male couples. Recruitment for the full sample involved snowball sampling (Patton, 1990) via a community-based strategy that included collaboration with gay/lesbian newspapers, community organizations, health centers, houses of worship, and social/recreational venues (Same-Sex Marriage Study Group). Couple sociodemographic information can be found in Table 1.

Qualitative protocol and data analysis

First, data were collected from individuals in semistructured interviews that covered individual and couple relationship history, as well as background information on LGBT identity. Second, both members of the couple were interviewed together using a semistructured protocol that asked about their joint decision making and the impact that the change in legal context may have had on their relationship. A key focus of this analysis includes the interview section adapted from McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, and Bowman’s (2001) Life Story Interview Methodology, in which each individual was asked to describe the chapters of the couple’s relationship as if it were a book. Formal chapter titles are included in case studies and thematic analyses as provided by participants. Data collection was conducted in participants’ homes and lasted approximately 2 hr, allowing for completion of a short questionnaire and sequential individual interviews with each member of the couple, followed by the couple interview. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, verified for accuracy, and entered in an ATLAS.ti qualitative database for analysis (Lewins & Silver, 2007). To maintain confidentiality, each individual chose a pseudonym for use as an identifier in transcribed interviews.

We read through each set of transcripts and reviewed questionnaire data to develop descriptive case studies (Yin, 2002). We prioritized recall of milestone events and the context in which they occurred in order to determine patterns in the progression of relationships that might influence choice of marrying or not once the opportunity was presented. The primary case material came from the relationship story prompt of the individual interview protocol, but material from other sections of the individual and couple’s interview was included where relevant. Stories from each partner were combined to create a single case, and across couples, individuals consistently corroborated each other’s relationship story while still providing a nuanced narrative unique to his or her point of view. We found no discrepancies in the recall of events. Couples were categorized into three groups: married with children, married with no children, and not married. Initially, each author developed a single case of one of the couples from the first category. We reviewed the first two case studies for consistency and variety in the types of milestones included and came to consensus on events to be covered in subsequent cases: length of time together, the year the relationship started, education, and career development including retirement, child-rearing, joint home ownership, points of relational conflict, and experience of loss of family members.

Moving iteratively between cases and full interview sets, we used an inductive process of creating interpretive codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994) from a number of emerging themes. We began with identification of topic-level or “bucket” codes across the transcripts that corresponded to questions in the interview protocol to divide the data into manageable chunks. This allowed us to narrow down the following topic-level sections: Being Out, Benefits, Children, Decision About Marriage, Legalization Period, Sexual Identity and Coming-Out, and Relationship Story. We read through each of these sections for each interview in order to develop meaning-level codes or themes. The authors compiled meaning-level codes separately and then came together to compare codes once we felt we had saturated the data and then worked together to reach consensus on key themes. The role of the themes is to support the understanding of the cases relative to the research aim of exploring the longevity of the relationship in historical and social context through the life course.

First serious relationship at a formative stage of sexual identity development

For a number of these couples—Sally and Linda, Tim and Steven, Eddie and Frederick, and Rod and Leo—the beginning of their relationship was a turning point in acknowledging their sexual identity. These enduring relationships are also their “coming-out relationships” in that they were, and continue to be, with their first or first serious same-sex partner. Sally and Linda “were both straight women” when they met but soon set on a path to raising a family. This narrowed choices of where to live, as there are a limited number of states that have laws (e.g., same-sex adoption) offering support for nontraditional families. Steven said that he was “sexually active with men and aware that there was something I had to conceal. But the concealing stopped rather abruptly in 1982 [after meeting Tim], so for 22 years it’s been a non-concealed thing.” Tim had been through therapy “to make myself straight” and was conflicted about getting “involved in a sexual relationship with Steven.” For Frederick and Eddie, “there wasn’t a lot of time before” they met for exploring other relationships, so their relationship was their first “significant relationship.” Although older than the others when he came out in his 30s, Rod met Leo after attending a gay-to-straight conversion group and realizing he was “not going to change” and they have “been together ever since.” Both were experiencing their first “real” or “emotional relationship.”

For these couples, “coming to terms with those feelings” of being gay or lesbian was powerfully tied to falling in love with partners and set a strong foundation for commitment. Couples who entered relationships at adolescence (Sally and Linda; Frederick and Eddie) versus adulthood (Tim and Steven; Rod and Leo) experienced milestones in quicker succession. Younger trajectories of coming-out are associated with lower levels of psychological distress and higher levels of self-esteem (Floyd & Stein, 2002), which may enhance relationship quality. Adult trajectories of coming-out can be more challenging when fearing the loss of social relationships previously established as a heterosexual and can be associated with self-destructive coping behaviors (Johnston & Jenkins, 2004).

Home ownership as legal commitment

Although moving in together marked a progression in each of these relationships, buying a house together emerged as a much more significant marker of commitment, usually from 5 to 15 years into the relationship. All the couples indicated that they shared a home together; six of the couples spoke directly about the meaningfulness of purchasing a house together. Although not explicit in describing this as an important commitment facet of same-sex relationships, Leo implicitly states as much: “The next phase was in some ways kind of typical of relationship stages in that we next bought a house.” Elizabeth talks about this chapter, “This Seems to Be Continuing Onward” as a commitment scenario that Sarah was not quite ready for financially but was prepared for emotionally: “That was another big step, to get a house and continu[e] our lives together.” All partners contributed to the home purchase, which may reflect more egalitarian relationships compared to traditional heterosexual couples. After Tim and Steven returned from Europe, they sealed their commitment by “looking for a place to live and purchasing this house” as “something common to each of us.” For Eddie and Frederick, buying a house was as essential to their relationship as to their physical health, as it was a commitment to each other and a commitment to fighting a disease that would later claim the lives of several of their friends. Transcendent noted that buying his house with Lacemaker was the “first house I’ve ever lived in” and that it enhanced the relationship “like a flower that just keeps blooming.”

Buying a house is also connected with being open and out as a same-sex couple. Whereas couples might be somewhat anonymous sharing an apartment or condo in an urban neighborhood, it is difficult to remain invisible when one is, as Lacemaker points out, “a Black man living in the suburbs in a little house with a White man—I mean you have to be pretty thick not to know.” Thus, same-sex couples without the option of legal marriage nevertheless experienced the next most serious level of legal commitment, owning property together, which may be analogous to having a wedding. Indeed, this is the logical next step for many heterosexual married couples, the difference for them being that by the time they cosign mortgage papers, their assets are already legally bound.

Binding legal agreements as proxies for legal marriage

In the absence of legal marriage, some couples took additional steps of estate planning in order to formalize their commitment. Eine and Morgan, who decided not to marry after 40 years together, based their decision on the strength of these existing legal documents. “We’d spent thousands on estate attorneys not long before [the legalization ruling]. We once had this note saying, ‘If you do get married, we have to make some changes.’ Yeah, there was nothing—the tax implications, the money—it was a mess.” Previous to getting married, Rod and Leo put extensive protections in place for their relationship; being wed did little to confer any additional security, as they each carry a copy of their marriage license in their wallets, always prepared for potential challenges should there be a medical emergency.

Frederick notes that the commitment he and Eddie share is unchanged pre- and postmarriage because of their binding legal agreements. Eddie explains:

Similarly, Josh and Mark had a lawyer draw up a “health care proxy and trust for our house and we put our house into an irrevocable trust and we had wills set up and we did as much as we could with a lawyer on the estate planning.” These examples of purposeful pursuit of legal agreements act as a proxy to the marriage vow “till death us do part” in that they formalize commitment and also ensure protections from outsiders as well as protection from threats of separation within the couple. Although outsiders might assume that partners in same-sex couples can easily walk away, these binding agreements make separation prohibitive.

Becoming a family

The couples in our study had spent many years becoming family to each other, with or without the support and participation of their families of origin. Research demonstrates that children born within opposite-sex relationships contribute greatly to the stability of married as well as cohabiting couple relationships (Manning, 2004). This finding is borne out by the three couples in our sample who chose to have children together. The process and experience of raising children increased their closeness with each other, enhanced relational bonds with families of origin, and strengthened community ties. In reflecting on how having their daughter had affected his life, Josh realized that it helped him feel connected to the larger community in an important way.

For older lesbians and gay men who had grown up believing having children within a same-sex relationship was impossible, coming to believe that they were able to parent was a slow process. Though Mira was initially resistant to Rose’s pregnancy, it opened up a new door to intimacy.

The experience of having and raising two children further strengthened their relationship, in part by providing a new perspective on conflict as they had to “model” how to work together on solutions for the benefit of their children.

For Sally and Linda, whose families were initially not very supportive of their sexuality or their relationship, their children provided an avenue of increased connection with their families. This took both of them somewhat by surprise and helped heal some of the residual hurt from earlier rejection.

Both Linda and Sally report that their children are treated no differently than any of the other grandchildren on either side of the family and have brought their families closer. Mira and Rose reported a similar experience of their children serving as a catalyst to increased acceptance by their families of origin. Growing evidence suggests that children raised by same-sex parents are at no greater risk of developmental deficits than children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2000). However, the stigma experienced by same-sex parents is too often extended to their children and can cause psychological distress (Pawelski et al., 2006). Also, potential conflicts in the transition to parenthood for lesbian couples may be exacerbated by lack of support from the biological mother’s family toward the nonbiological parent (Goldberg & Sayer, 2006).

In response to the section of the interview in which they were asked about the extent to which they are out to their families and communities, all three couples said that having children made this a moot question. For example, Sally and Linda decided that they needed to be “totally out to everybody” before they had children because “you can’t really have children and be in the closet.” Their status as parents also prompted these couples to legally marry as soon as it became possible in order to provide protection and legitimacy to their families. As Mark described,

These couples felt that in addition to providing important legal protections, being legally married provided their children with an almost intangible yet critical sense of security, family, and identity. Linda described the impact of their marriage on their youngest daughter.

Of the older couples in our analysis who did not have children together, Eddie and Frederick described choosing not to become parents because of the uncertainty of HIV-positive life, whereas Steven had a son from a previous heterosexual marriage. Other couples might have simply not have wanted children. Mira had expected to have “a babyless life” and would have done so if not for her younger partner’s decision to get pregnant. Mira realized what she “had been missing all these years” because “having children is the lottery winnings of my life.” Thus, age and relationship timing may also be a factor in that the window of opportunity may have occurred when same-sex parenting was unheard of and held more stigma. More of the younger couples in the larger sample had children or were in the process of planning a family postmarriage (Same-Sex Marriage Study Group, 2005).

The role of therapy

For couples in opposite-sex relationships, counseling and therapy can be effective in reducing conflict and increasing satisfaction (Green, 2004; Shadish, Ragsdale, Glaser, & Montgomery, 1995). Two couples in our sample attributed the duration and success of their relationships to a combination of individual and couple’s therapy. Mira reported that the various counselors whom she and Rose turned to over the years had helped them to “find the pathways of connecting in our relationship, to maintain our connections rather than allowing our difference in perspective to pull us apart.” When Rod decided to disclose his ongoing infidelities to Leo 20 years into their relationship in order to move beyond them and take their relationship to a more honest level, therapy helped them weather this near-catastrophic storm. Leo described that time:

These individuals each had had some experience with therapy prior to their relationship. Both couples used a combination of individual and couple’s therapy to contain conflicts that would have threatened their relationships if left unchecked; thus, therapy became a tool for a direct or “confrontive” management style and psychologically intimate communication essential for relationship satisfaction and longevity (Mackey et al., 2004).

Although there is no indication that Sarah and Elizabeth would have broken up without therapy, the support they received from a social worker during Elizabeth’s bout with cancer was instrumental in taking their relationship to a new level. When their counselor challenged them about why they were not out to the friends and family whose support they could really use during this crisis, it “changed our whole world, literally.” By gradually completing their counselor’s “assignments” of coming-out to specific people, they discovered that “of course everybody already knew” and drew closer to family and friends who were ready and willing to embrace them as a family unit. Consistent with evidence that support received from social and family networks is a key element of relationship health (Huston, 2000), therapy helped bring a new dimension to their relationship, including increased involvement in their religious community and in the LGBT community. Had they not come out with the help of this counselor, the decision to get legally married “would have been, not harder, but it would have not been so automatic.”

Green (2004) observed how reaching a level of “outness” in order for same-sex couples to fully engage with a supportive social network requires overcoming internalized homophobia and fears of homophobic rejection. Because negative self-images that derive from growing up gay or lesbian in a homophobic society can interfere with the formation of an enduring bond, those same-sex couples who achieve successful long-term relationships have learned to overcome these challenges, as individuals and as couples. In addition to the three couples who turned to joint therapy for help with this process, three members of these couples sought individual therapy, as did at least two other respondents.

Monogamy and role models

Expectations of monogamy, which are standard for conventional heterosexual relationships, might seem counter to stereotypical images of same-sex relationships, in particular gay male relationships. Given the more open sexual attitudes and acceptance of nonmonogamy among gay men (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983), some participants expressed struggles with infidelity. Male couples in particular described feeling that they are bucking a general community trend in choosing to be monogamous. This is interesting in light of research indicating that same-sex couples are actually at least as likely to sustain long-term relationships as, and share many similarities with, opposite-sex couples (Kurdek, 2004; Mackey et al., 2004). However, couples suggested that role models for lasting relationships were rare and yet so critical to success in relationships that they had to become their own role models as well as models for the community. Josh described one chapter of his relationship with Mark as “Striving to be Role Models,” which highlighted their goal of being “open with everyone we knew” and also self-imposed pressure to “be beyond reproach” in “social networks” with friends and family. He went on to speculate that the local “singles scene” would die down in 30 years “if marriage keeps going.” Eddie talked about role models who were important for him when he and Frederick started their relationship. The “two couples who’d been together seven and ten years” set the stage for them in demonstrating relationships “more like [their] parents” that Eddie and Frederick emulated and thus were themselves role models for a “whole following” of other couples. Eddie reflected on the example he set for an 18-year-old guest at his wedding that by being a witness for Eddie and Frederick, this young man saw that “he can find a life-long partner, he can be married in a temple.” Although Transcendent was not necessarily an advocate for gay marriage, he was nonetheless proud of his relationship and described it a model for others:

For these men, monogamy was explicitly tied to the concept of being a role model but more implicit among the women in our study who talked about being role models. Mira and Rose told of leaving their own marriage ceremony on May 17 and the profound interaction they had with a group of young people who told them “Thanks for getting married. I’m so proud of you.” By being visible, they are able to “pave the way” for gay and lesbian youth to engage in lasting relationships. This intensely personal journey for these couples over the many years of their relationships was seen as an important success for the gay and lesbian community and for the larger community in which they live. While heterosexual couples tend to take their vows early on in their relationship in front of a community of witnesses charged to support them in their marriage, these couples came to take on the responsibility of succeeding in their relationships as part of their role in supporting their community. Legal marriage was an additional and profound symbol of their role model status.

Generation and cohort

Scholars of the life course have documented the critical influence of historic time on the developmental trajectories of individuals, as well as on their social and relational networks (Elder, 1994). It is therefore interesting to note that the two couples who chose not to legally marry were also among the three oldest. Eine and Morgan became romantically involved before Stonewall. Although Transcendent and Lacemaker became initially involved in about 1970, just after Stonewall, they also had grown up and come into their sexuality in the extremely repressive pre-Stonewall climate. The ways in which both couples chose to construct and continue to live their relationships strongly suggest a significant generational influence.

In describing their decision not to marry, Eine explained that they had “no compelling reason to do so.” Morgan added that marriage did not seem an important political or personal right to them “because of our age, because of how long we’ve been together, because of our needs of estate planning that aren’t as prominent for younger people.” They had spent thousands of dollars instituting all the legal protections they felt they needed and did not see a need to complicate those arrangements by changing their status through a marriage recognized only by Massachusetts. Transcendent and Lacemaker also felt that legal marriage had nothing to offer them. Although they wear rings symbolizing their commitment to each other, they feel no need for ceremony or legal authorization. As Lacemaker put it, marriage is made “not by some sort of legal sanction” but by the commitment of the people in the relationship to each other. Legally endorsing a relationship does not make it more of one, and outlawing it does not make it less.

In addition to a resistance to marriage, these two couples stand in contrast to the other study participants given their lack of connection to or involvement in any larger gay or lesbian community. Although Eine and Morgan have maintained a connection with a small social circle of gay and lesbian friends since the 1960s, they describe a degree of alienation from the gay marriage movement, which they feel may have erred in taking an “all or nothing approach” to obtaining civil rights for same-sex couples. Transcendent and Lacemaker did not indicate any connections to the gay community but rather “lead a straight life with a gay relationship at the center” and also described some alienation from the promarriage movement. Transcendent felt that the court decision was a “disaster,” because he thought that “it would give the Bush people exactly the ammunition it did.” Although Lacemaker could see some merit in proactively changing laws, he also felt that “I’m old enough to know [that] civil rights—those laws don’t change the way people act or think or anything, it’s a much longer process.”

Although Eine and Morgan are not closeted, neither do they feel a need to express their gay identity as a matter of pride. As Morgan described, “coming out to us is not an announcement, it’s never been an announcement to anybody.” When describing the extent to which they are out to people in their lives, both couples stated something to the effect of “it never comes up.” Morgan stated that people in their circle “either know or they ask, if they ask we say, ‘sure.’” Transcendent also said that he would confirm his relationship with Lacemaker if asked, but asserts that no one ever asked, or commented—not even his closest relatives and friends, who have often stayed the night with them.

The conclusion that this shared attitude is in part a product of generation and cohort is strengthened by the counterexample of Sarah and Elizabeth. Although of roughly the same age and cohort, they are in contrast very actively involved in the gay and lesbian community and firmly support the promarriage movement. But if not for the intervention of a therapist, described above, who challenged them to be out to their family and social networks, it is likely that this couple would have maintained the same type of “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach described by Eine and Morgan and Transcendent and Lacemaker. As Sarah described, their therapist’s challenge made them realize that “time had really changed” and they had been maintaining a stance developed during a time of much less tolerance. When prompted to grapple with the pros and cons of being out, they decided to change the way they lived as a couple in the world. Comparative study of Vermont same-sex couples in civil unions with those not legally recognized found that those in civil unions were more visibly out to family and community in general (Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004). These correlational results do not reveal whether individuals who are more out are more likely to get married or vice versa, but it may be that these two conditions interact dynamically together.

To some degree, reluctance in showing the public face of one’s relationships may be a product of internalized homophobia (Meyer, 1998). An understanding of generation and cohort again offers some context. The don’t ask, don’t tell approach was an adaptive response to the climate of intolerance in which all three of these couples came into their sexual identities and formed these relationships (Morrow, 2001). In the absence of any external motivation to switch gears, Eine and Morgan and Transcendent and Lacemaker do not appear to need to claim the type of public gay identity that seems integral to those in our sample who came of age in a somewhat more tolerant context. As Sarah noted, in describing the initial hesitation to marry of gay male couple with whom she and Elizabeth have been friends since college,

Although the threat of having an uncomfortable conversation has been avoided by Transcendent and Lacemaker for 27 years, this has also meant that for 27 years no one has felt free to celebrate with this couple in marking occasions that recognize their life together.

Significance and limitations

We set out to examine the impact of legal marriage on men and women in long-term same-sex relationships. The principal limitations of this study are its retrospective nature, the limited diversity of our sample, and our inability to consider couples in long-term relationships for whom the opportunity to wed led to a reevaluation of their relationship and subsequent termination. However, our methods and sampling strategy lend particular strengths that offset these to considerable degree, as we bring to light important stories of relationship commitment, struggle, and success that are notably absent from the literature on long-term relationship stability.

Notably, the majority of longitudinal research on gay and lesbian couples is relatively short term, often spanning a 5-year period (Kurdek, 2000). Because few studies are able to follow same-sex couples over time into mature phases of their relationships, the capacity of our couple narratives to capture key transitions is an important contribution. Despite extensive recruitment efforts, respondents may not adequately reflect the diversity of couples who decided to marry in the period immediately following legalization. However, this may call into question whether marriage in the LGBT community mirrors that of heterosexual couples, for whom marriage rates are dropping among lower income and racial minority couples but remain stable among the more affluent and higher educated (The National Marriage Project, 2007) who benefit financially from marriage to a greater degree than poorer couples (Wells & Zinn, 2004). Indeed, financial resources may be an important guard against stress in relationships (Conger et al., 1999), and the relative affluence of these couples may have offset stressors of homophobia and intolerance. Those couples in our sample who felt socially isolated from families of origin may have been buffered from the additional stressors faced by those individuals who are similarly estranged but not as financially secure.

Same-sex marriage is hardly a universal goal in the LGBT community, where considerable debate exists over the movement for marriage equality. Feminists have decried same-sex marriage as a capitulation to an inherently patriarchal institution that needs to be abolished (Jeffreys, 2004); others question the emphasis on marriage rights at the expense of other civil rights battles such as employment discrimination (LaSala, 2007). Peel and Harding (2004) attempt to disentangle what they believe are confounded issues by arguing that emphasis on romance can be useful for increasing visibility, legal issues are essential considerations for equality, and same-sex marriage could lead to a radical transformation of heterosexual marriage. Older couples in our study did not engage in these sorts of pro and con debates although results from the larger sample (Same-Sex Marriage Study Group, 2005) did show evidence that some much younger participants rejected the institution of marriage. This missing discourse among our older couples may point to generational differences; our oldest couples opting not to marry did not express themselves along these lines but rather stated that marriage was not the right personal choice for them. Research on the lived experiences of same-sex couples across generations is essential to furthering this debate.

Implications for practice and policy

These case studies provide an overview of the deeper psychological processes present within and between individuals in long-term couple relationships. For many, these primary relationships were also the first in which they could be authentic in allowing another person to know their whole selves, including sexual identity kept hidden from family of origin, heterosexual friends, and coworkers. This authenticity, a key concept of relational-cultural theory, is critical to both growth and healing of the individual within relationships (Walker, 2004). Delving into these processes is beyond the scope of this paper; however, in this analysis we are able to highlight how concerns about being out versus keeping oneself and one’s relationship hidden are a catalyst for relational conflicts. Therapists working with gay and lesbian individuals and couples should pay particular attention to cohort as well as the context of timing of the relationship, including expectations for same-sex relationships when couples got together. One goal of therapy would be to help each partner make explicit and understand what commitment means for him or her, given the dearth of role models or road maps.

In 2005, the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2005) drafted a position statement in support of protections for same-sex marriage as essential for psychological well-being of individuals and family and as a fundamental issue of equality. However, older couples may still carry the stigma of the APA’s diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental disorder prior to 1973. Several individuals in our study felt pressure to engage in “reparative” therapy in order to change their sexual orientation. Although the Commission on Psychotherapy by Psychiatrists and APA (2006) issued a statement opposing such psychiatric treatment, these deleterious approaches continue to exist, creating additional layers of self-recrimination and reinforcing internalized homophobia. Training in issues of gay and lesbian identity and relational development is critical to ensure culturally competent services and to guard against biases of homophobia and heterosexism in treatment (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997).

As laws change to provide equal marriage to same-sex couples, protections for children of those couples are also improved. A greater understanding of the dedication that same-sex couples have for their children and the role they play in strengthening bonds within the couple is necessary for policymakers to make informed decisions about legislation that protects traditional and nontraditional families alike. The DOMA and similar legislative initiatives claiming to protect families actually foster insecurity among children of same-sex parents. In a commissioned article for the American Academy of Pediatrics, representatives of key committees (Pawelski et al., 2006) detail the numerous legal protections and privileges that provide security to children in opposite-sex families; argue that the security generated by these conventions is critical to children’s physical and mental health, development, and well-being; and review the growing body of research indicating that children raised by parents in same-sex relationships are at no particular risks and have the same needs as all other children. They conclude that changing policies to provide legal protection and security for children of gay and lesbian parents should be a public health priority.

With the graying of the United States, we have an ever larger population of ageing same-sex couples who are certain to suffer from lack of access to survivor benefits, such as retirement, social security, and health care, to which their married heterosexual counterparts are legally entitled (Messinger, 2006). Although an increasing number of same-sex couples do initiate binding legal agreements to ensure some level of protection, such arrangements are still challengeable from relatives who might have greater legal standing than the same-sex partner. Those estranged from other family members as a result of homophobia will face increased financial and health risks because of this lack of support. Since the New Deal, this country has made it a priority to increase security for elders and reduce poverty among this group. Unless some thought and policy change are directed toward elders in long-term same-sex relationships, a sizable minority may slip through this safety net, ending their years in indigence and poor health.

Case studies from these couples provide lessons in longevity of relationships and the protective factors necessary to withstand the adversity of homophobia and heterosexism, which remain a strong enough wedge issue to influence national and local elections. Their stories provide important insight into the influence of history, biography, social forces, and social context on individuals in same-sex couples and their relationship trajectories and offer direction for practitioners and policymakers.