Show Summary Details

A more recent version of this content exists; this version was replaced on 1 September 2013. The version that replaced it can be found here.
Page of

PRINTED FROM the Encyclopedia of Social Work, accessed online. (c) National Association of Social Workers and Oxford University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the applicable license agreement governing use of the Encyclopedia of Social Work accessed online, an authorized individual user may print out a PDF of a single article for personal use, only (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 18 November 2019

Marriage and Domestic Partners

Abstract and Keywords

This entry briefly covers the history, demographics, research, clinical practice, diversity, debates, and trends surrounding marriage and domestic partnership in the United States.

Who marries and why, when, and at what rate people marry is covered, as are some of the statistics behind alternatives to traditional marriage, such as cohabitation, domestic partnership, and civil unions. It is beyond the scope of this entry to discuss in detail relationship dissolution and divorce, although information is provided insomuch as it relates to marriage and domestic partnership.

Keywords: marriage, domestic partnership, civil unions, same-sex marriage, couple therapy, cohabitation, divorce

The ability to form close relationships with others is a crucial component of life span development. In fact, an inability to do so may be considered partial criteria for some types of mental disorders (see American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Psychologist Erik Erikson theorized that young adults must master intimacy over isolation if they are to move successfully through his proposed stages of psychosocial development (Erikson, 1980). Apart from these theoretical obligations, much of global society sanctions the forming of close relationships that it deems appropriate. Proms, engagements, weddings, and anniversary celebrations serve to socially reinforce (usually heterosexual) couplings and the norms surrounding acceptable relationships.

Marriage is the legal, and most often consensual, joining of two persons of the opposite sex, and more recently (albeit geographically limited) of the same sex as well. Domestic partnership can refer to any unrelated persons 18 years of age or older living together for a minimum specified period of time and in a financially interdependent relationship. Both unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples can apply for domestic partner status in those jurisdictions and companies that recognize it. However, such distinction still falls short of the 1,138 federal benefits and protections afforded to legally married couples (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997, 2004). For example, access to a partner's Social Security benefits, Medicaid and Medicare benefits, and veterans' pensions, and the exemption from gift and estate tax liabilities are just a few of the laws mentioned in the U.S. Code that are affected by marital status. Only marriage offers couples such entitlements; civil unions, a proposed substitute for same-sex marriage and available in only a handful of states, afford no federal benefits and protections.

History

Following an extensive survey of marriage definitions across time and cultures, Coontz (2005) summarizes what many definitions of marriage share: the ascription of rights and responsibilities within the immediate and extended families and society, and the generational transmission of inheritance.

Theory

Traditional marriage (referred to by some as institutional marriage) has been defined by strict gender roles in which the husband meets the family's financial needs while the wife fulfills its social and emotional needs. More egalitarian and less role limiting is companionship marriage in which friendship and role sharing take center stage (Steinmetz, Clavan, & Stein 1990).

Wilcox and Nock (2006) refer to this power-sharing model as companionate marriage. A departure from this view is the equity model, in which women are less concerned with equality than equity. An equitable division of labor may follow along traditional gender lines, but it is seen as acceptable by women who perceive their domestic orientation as innate. This differs from institutional marriage, which Wilcox and Nock define as one valued for its moral and religious underpinnings and the normative support the couple receives. Last, feminist theory views marriage as the result of gender socialization, traditional gender norms, and social pressure to conform to those norms (Schwartz & Scott 2000), a theory that loosely resembles Wilcox and Nock's gender model of marriage.

U.S. Perspective

In a survey of more than 2,000 Americans (Patterson & Kim 1991), 36% indicated love as the reason they married. Lagging behind were companionship/fear of aging alone (14%), desire to have children (12%), sex (10%), happiness (9%), money (5%), and habit or convenience (5%). However, these figures belie the trend of decreasing rates of marriage and increasing rates of divorce. Amato, Booth, Johnson, and Rogers (2007) propose two models to explain the increase in marital instability. First, marital expectations have increased while divorce barriers have decreased. In the second model, marital expectations have not changed, but marital quality has declined overall.

Traditional marriage has until recently been limited to the legal, and in most cases religious, union of one man and one woman. In 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, following the Supreme Judicial Court's finding unconstitutional the limiting of marriage to heterosexual couples, challenged this definition by issuing licenses to same-sex partners wishing to marry (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 2004). Similarly, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey passed civil union legislation recognizing same-sex couples in their respective states. Despite this progress, all but four states and the District of Columbia have instituted laws or constitutional amendments against same-sex unions. These initiatives go above and beyond the preexisting Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, which allows states to not recognize same-sex unions granted by any other state.

International Perspective

North American and European societies permit individual selection of marital partners, compared with most other societies in which future spouses are chosen by the family (Georgas, 2006). Whom one can marry (endogamy) and cannot marry (exogamy) varies to some extent across cultures. For example in some societies, upon her husband's death, a wife may be expected to marry his brother (endogamy) while in almost all societies, marrying her own brother would be widely prohibited (Georgas, 2006).

Much of international, particularly Western, society's understanding of marriage has come under scrutiny in recent years, with more countries broadening their legal protection and benefits to include same-sex partners. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa now permit same-sex marriage nationwide. The United Kingdom offers civil partnerships, stopping just short of using the term “marriage.” Many countries in Africa and the Middle East, however, still consider same-sex sexual behavior a crime punishable by law.

Demographics

Few would argue that the face of marriage, divorce, and cohabitation has changed in recent years. However, the interpretation of those statistics as being for the better or worse remains subjective. What is certain is that the rush to marry has slowed (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b), those choosing cohabitation have found an alternative path to partnership (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), and the percentage of persons who have ever divorced has increased (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) as the barriers to divorce have diminished.

Prevalence and Incidence

Slightly more than half (52.6%) of persons 15 years of age and older in 2006 reported being currently married and 2.1% separated. Nearly one-third (29.4%) identified as never married, with 6% and 9.8% currently widowed and divorced, respectively. Compared with the overall percentage, more Asians (60.1%) and Whites (56.4%) were married than Blacks (32.4%) and Hispanics (50.7%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Trends over the last 10 years show a decline in marriage from 56.9% in 1996 and an increase in the percentages of persons never married, up from 27.5%, and divorced, up from 8.9% (U.S. Census Bureau, 1996).

By definition, persons in same-sex and other unmarried domestic partnerships are counted among the never married. Unmarried couples are accounted for only if they live in the same household. In 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), there were more than 5 million unmarried couples living together; 12.6% of those were identified as same-sex couple households (slightly more than half were male–male couples). According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS, 2006) of the Centers for Disease Control, individuals married at a rate of 7.5 per 1,000 people in 2005, down from 8.8 per 1,000 in 1996 (NCHS, 1999). Likewise, the rate of divorces dropped from 4.3 per 1,000 in 1996 (NCHS, 1999) to 3.6 in 2005 (NCHS, 2006).

Marital Age and Duration

The age at which individuals marry for the first time continues to rise. In 1983, men entered their first marriage at age 25.4 and women at 22.8. Twenty years later, those ages jumped to 27.1 and 25.3, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b).

Although 96.1% of the men who married for the first time between 1955 and 1959 made it to their fifth wedding anniversary, only 90.1% of men married for the first time between 1990 and 1994 made it. Even fewer women saw their fifth anniversary: 94% married between 1955 and 1959 compared with 86.9% between 1990 and 1994. First marriages that end in divorce do so after a median of 8.2 years for men and 7.9 years for women. Second marriages that end in divorce endure only slightly longer: 9.2 years among men and 8.1 years among women (Kreider, 2005).

Latest Research and Best Practices

Work with couples can be divided into two realms: prevention before problems begin and intervention after problems have appeared. Although prevention can be considered an intervention in itself, it is meant here in terms of its temporal relationship to the onset of couple difficulties.

Interdisciplinary Connections and Contributions

Interpretations of prevention and intervention in couple therapy can vary across disciplines. Couple therapy, the specialty of marriage and family therapists, is also practiced by professionals in other fields, including social work, psychology, counseling, and nursing. The social work perspective on working with couples is similar to its person-in-environment approach with other systems (Williams, Karls, & Wandrei 1994). Social workers recognize simultaneously the needs of each individual within the couple dyad as well as the couple as a unit. From a systems perspective, each partner is a subsystem within the couple system, just as the couple is a subsystem within the larger society. Ecologically speaking, social workers assess and establish goals and objectives for improving the fit between couple and environment through collaboration with the couple.

Prevention

With the growing visibility of alternative relationships, many clinicians and scholars recognize the appropriateness of referring to intimate relationships inclusively as “couples” rather than using the more limiting “marriages” (Gurman & Jacobson 1995). Yet, much of the literature focuses still on the marital dyad. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the prevention efforts that typically surround premarital education and counseling. Initiatives aimed at preventing destructive marital patterns take on various forms, from informal to formal and from traditional to contemporary. In a random household survey of four mid-American states, premarital education was associated with greater marital satisfaction and spousal commitment and lower odds of divorce (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman 2006). Cordova et al. (2005) developed the Marriage Checkup (which incorporates motivational interviewing) for at-risk couples and found that participants fared better than their control group counterparts. Even mindfulness meditation has found its way into the realm of relationship enhancement (Carson, Carson, Gil, & Baucom 2004).

One well-known model is the skills-based Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP). PREP involves six 2–2.5-hr sessions delivered weekly or condensed into a weekend and addresses such skill-building areas as communication and problem solving (Floyd, Markman, Kelly, Blumberg, & Stanley 1995). Extensive research (see “Suggested Links” below for PREP resources) has demonstrated PREP's effectiveness across delivery settings and disciplines.

Intervention

Three couple therapies whose effectiveness is widely published are behavioral couple therapy (BCT), cognitive behavioral couple therapy (CBCT), and emotionally focused couple therapy (EFCT; Christensen & Heavey 1999). In their review of the literature, Christensen and Heavey indicated that none of these is better than another and instead point to the possibilities in matching couples to the most appropriate treatment. A meta-analysis by Wood, Crane, Schaalje, and Law (2005), however, found EFCT significantly more effective than behavior marital therapy (that is, BCT) in treating moderate levels of marital distress. Integrative behavioral couple therapy (IBCT) is a relatively newer treatment that combines BCT with a component of emotional acceptance (that is, helping couples accept in each other what they cannot change). IBCT was shown to be similar to BCT at posttreatment (Christensen et al., 2004) and at 2-year follow-up (Christensen, Atkins, Yi, Baucom, & George 2006) in treating marital distress.

Diversity and Vulnerable Populations

Cultural expectations and societal limitations affect one's decision and ability to partner and/or marry. Aside from the legal implications of same-sex partnerships for lesbians and gay men, other (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) populations experience their own expressions of and challenges to partnership and marriage.

Race and Ethnicity

The availability of mates, cultural norms, and filial responsibility to parents affect partnerships and marriages among populations of color. For example, the disproportionately high rates of incarceration and homicide and low rate of sustainable employment among African American males limits viable partner selection for women (Bonhomme, 2006). The probability of Latinas marrying is less than that for White woman but more than that for African American women; comparatively, it is higher among non-U.S.-born than U.S.-born Latinas (Lloyd, 2006). Some Asian cultures, even when exposed to Western cultures, continue to value filial responsibility. Aging Chinese American and Japanese American parents are more likely than their White counterparts to live with their adult children, particularly those adult children who are or have ever been married (Kamo & Zhou 1994).

Antimiscegenation laws, which existed through the first two-thirds of the 20th century, prohibited interracial marriages between Whites and either Blacks or Asians (Trask & Koivunen 2007). Since the repealing of these laws, racial heterogamy increased between 1980 and 2000, as did the marital quality of these relationships (Amato et al., 2007). Interracial marriage is more likely between White and non-White groups than between two non-White groups. However, Whites and African Americans have the lowest rates of interracial marriages; American Indians are among the groups with the highest rates (Lee & Edmonston 2005).

Age

Karasik and Hamon (2007) aptly point out that marrying in later life is subject to social and cultural norms. Because women typically outlive men, yet are expected to seek out mates their own age or older, there is a paucity of available partners. This, coupled with society's discomfort with sexuality among elderly individuals, makes for an environment that denies, if not discourages, elder partnering.

Physical and Mental Ability

The lack of autonomy in decision making may be one of the greatest obstacles to marriage, if not partnership, for persons with disabilities. The inability of an individual deemed incompetent to provide consent, or guardians who do not grant consent, can prevent those with physical or mental disabilities from marrying. The high prevalence of partner violence against persons with disabilities can also make this decision very difficult for the individual with the disability and, if relevant, his or her guardian (Jordan & Dunlap 2001).

Class

Persons living in poverty or at the margins have particularly been the target of an institutionalized marriage push. The Welfare Reform Act of1996 and subsequent Reauthorization in 2006 included funds allocated for the Healthy Marriage Initiative, which seeks to promote marriage as a means of shrinking the welfare rolls (Administration for Children and Families, 2007). The success of such programs remains to be seen, as early reports show that more than half of cohabiting relationships among poor women end by the fifth year, leaving fewer than half of these relationships surviving or transitioning to marriage (Lichter, Qian, & Mellott 2006).

Debates Including Ethical Issues and Dilemmas

The prevailing debate in the United States at this time regarding partnership and marriage is that of same-sex marriage. In 2004, President George W. Bush called for the Constitution to be amended, once and for all, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, fearing that DOMA may one day be overturned.

Traditional definitions of marriage reach from the local to the national levels, including the U.S. Census Bureau's tabulation of marriages as those comprised of a husband and a wife (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004a). However, these exclusionary definitions no longer apply to nearly 6 million couples and families across the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).

The National Association of Social Workers' (NASW) Code of Ethics (1996) calls on social workers to “prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability” (§ 6.04 Social and Political Action). Social workers who support the extension of marriage to same-sex couples see this issue as fully within the bounds of social justice as spelled out by the Code. Social workers who oppose same-sex marriage—nearly 30% in one study (Green, 2005) believed that state laws regarding consensual behavior among gay men and lesbians should not be loosened—may not view the lack of such legislation as discriminatory.

Trends and Directions

The proportion of those who have ever cohabited has increased over the years, from 33% in 1987 to 45% in 1995, the greatest increase being among Whites and among high-school graduates (Bumpass & Lu 2000). The proportion of premarital cohabitation has likewise increased, up from 16% in 1980 to 41% by century's end (Amato et al., 2007). Marital breakups rose in the decades spanning the 1950s through the 1970s but leveled off into the 1980s. The probability that a second marriage would break up, however, continued to increase through the 1980s, even though the likelihood of remarriage decreased over the years (Bramlett & Mosher 2002).

According to a public opinion poll conducted in July 2006 by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (PFRPL, 2006), 35% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, while 56% oppose it. A May 2006Gallup Poll (2007) reported slightly higher favorability, with between 39% and 42% in favor and between 56% and 58% in opposition. Favorability has ebbed and flowed in recent years, reaching a high of 39% in March 2006 following a low of 29% in August 2004 (PFRPL, 2006). Opposition is strongest among those 65 years of age and older and among conservative Republicans. Civil unions, which provide legal recognition and some of the same rights afforded to married couples, however, have gained acceptance among the majority (54%; PFRPL, 2006).

Between the year 2000, when Vermont enacted this country's first same-sex civil union legislation, and 2003, 6,683 civil unions had been established (Vermont Department of Health, 2005). There has been a steady decline in the rate of civil unions performed over the 4-year period; however, this may be more of a leveling off than a sign of diminishing interest. Since then, Massachusetts has become the first state to permit same-sex marriage. So far, about 8,500 lesbian and gay couples have taken advantage of this legalization (MassEquality.org).

Implications for Social Work

Social work is a profession that easily adapts to the changing environment. Judging by the trends and directions discussed above, social work's ability to respond to the transformation of marriage and domestic partnership is indispensable. By virtue of their required education and training, professional values and ethics, and regulated practice standards, social workers are aptly qualified to engage in intervention with couples. Indeed, social workers provide the majority of mental health services in the United States.

Social workers are in an ideal position to work with all types of couple relationships, especially those comprising individuals from traditionally underserved populations. Working with the partner dyad to decrease destructive patterns and enhance healthy interactions is just one level of intervention. With an emphasis on social justice, social work seeks to dismantle prejudice and discrimination against those couples whose legal options have been traditionally limited, for example, same-sex and mentally challenged couples. Furthermore, social workers are called on to advocate for couples whose access to and benefits of domestic partnership and marriage have been negatively impacted by racial, economic, age, and gender inequality. Understanding the intersection of political, social, and economic realities at the various concentric proximities to the couple will serve social work well, as marriage and domestic partnerships undergo continuous reshaping and redefinition in the future.

References

Administration for Children and Families. (2007). The healthy marriage initiative (HMI): General information. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/mission.html.

Amato, P. R., Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Rogers, S. J. (2007). Alone together: How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text Revision). Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

Bonhomme, J. (2006). African–American males in the United States prison system: Impact on family and community. The Journal of Men's Health & Gender, 3(3), 223–226.Find this resource:

Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States (DHHS Publication No. PHS 2002-1998). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Find this resource:

Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. -H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41.Find this resource:

Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy, 35, 471–494.Find this resource:

Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Berns, S., Wheeler, J., Baucom, D. H., & Simpson, L. E. (2004). Traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy for significantly and chronically distressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 176–191.Find this resource:

Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Yi, J., Baucom, D. H., & George, W. H. (2006). Couple and individual adjustment for 2 years following a randomized clinical trial comparing traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1180–1191.Find this resource:

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1999). Interventions for couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 165–190.Find this resource:

Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy or how love conquered marriage. New York: Viking.Find this resource:

Cordova, J. V., Scott, R. L., Dorian, M., Mirgain, S., Yaeger, D., & Groot, A. (2005). The Marriage Checkup: An indicated preventive intervention for treatment-avoidant couples at risk for marital deterioration. Behavior Therapy, 36, 301–309.Find this resource:

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.Find this resource:

Floyd, F. J., Markman, H. J., Kelly, S., Blumberg, S. L., & Stanley, S. M. (1995). Preventive intervention and relationship enhancement. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 212–226). New York: The Guilford Press.Find this resource:

The Gallup Poll. (2007). Homosexual relations. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1651&pg=1.

Georgas, J. (2006). Families and family change. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry, F. J. R. van de Vijver, C. Kağitçibaşi, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Families across culture: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 3–50). New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309; 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003).Find this resource:

Green, R. (2005). The use of bidimensional scales to assess social workers' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Social Work Research, 29(1), 57–60.Find this resource:

Gurman, A. S., & Jacobson, N. S. (1995). Therapy with couples: A coming of age. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 1–6). New York: The Guilford Press.Find this resource:

Jordan, B., & Dunlap, G. (2001). Construction of adulthood and disability. Mental Retardation, 39(4), 286–296.Find this resource:

Kamo, Y., & Zhou, M. (1994). Living arrangements of elderly Chinese and Japanese in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 544–558.Find this resource:

Karasik, R. J., & Hamon, R. R. (2007). Cultural diversity and aging families. In B. S. Trask & R. R. Hamon (Eds.), Cultural diversity and families: Expanding perspectives (pp. 136–153). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:

Kreider, R. M. (2005). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2001 (Current Population Reports, P70–97). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Find this resource:

Lee, S. M., & Edmonston, B. (2005). New marriages, new families: U.S. racial and Hispanic intermarriage. Population Bulletin, 60(2), 3–36.Find this resource:

Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Mellott, L. M. (2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43(2), 223–240.Find this resource:

Lloyd, K. M. (2006). Latinas' transition to first marriage: An examination of four theoretical perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 993–1014.Find this resource:

MassEquality.org. (n.d.). The history of marriage equality in Massachusetts. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from http://www.massequality.org/background/.

National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Did you know? Facts about the profession. Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (1996). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (1999). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths: Provisional data for 1998. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_21.pdf.Find this resource:

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (2006). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths: Provisional data for 2005. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_20.pdf.Find this resource:

Patterson, J., & Kim, P. (1991). The day America told the truth: What people really believe about everything that really matters. New York: Prentice Hall.Find this resource:

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2006). Pragmatic Americans liberal and conservative on social issues. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150.

Schwartz, M. A., & Scott, B. M. (2000). Marriages and families: Diversity and change (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Find this resource:

Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 117–126.Find this resource:

Steinmetz, S. K., Clavan, S., & Stein, K. F. (1990). Marriage and family realities: Historical and contemporary perspectives. New York: Harper & Row.Find this resource:

Trask, B. S., & Koivunen, J. M. (2007). Trends in marriage and cohabitation. In B. S. Trask & R. R. Hamon (Eds.), Cultural diversity and families: Expanding perspectives (pp. 80–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:

U.S. Census Bureau. (1996). Marital status and living arrangements: March 1996. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-496u.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). PCT1. Unmarried-partner households by sex of partners [7]—Universe: Households. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov/.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004a). Current Population Survey (CPS): Definitions and explanations. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004b). Table MS-2. Estimated median age at first marriage, by sex: 1890 to present. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-2.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). 2005 American Community Survey: Households and families. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). America's families and living arrangements: 2006. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2006.html.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Defense of Marriage Act (GAO/OGC-97–16). Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004). Defense of Marriage Act: Update to the prior report (GAO-04–353R). Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

Vermont Department of Health. (2005). Vermont vital statistics. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://healthvermont.gov/research/stats/vital_stats.aspx.

Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2006). What's love got to do with it? Equality, equity, commitment and women's marital quality. Social Forces, 84(3), 1321–1345.Find this resource:

Williams, J. B., Karls, J. M., & Wandrei, K. E. (1994). The person-in-environment (PIE) system for describing problems of social functioning. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 40(11), 1125–1127.Find this resource:

Wood, N. D., Crane, D. R., Schaalje, G. B., & Law, D. D. (2005). What works for whom: A meta-analytic review of marital and couples therapy in reference to marital distress. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 273–287.Find this resource:

Further Reading

Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrc.org/

National Center for Health Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

The National Marriage Project. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/

Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program. http://prepinc.com/index.asp

United Nations Statistics Division. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/