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

• Author: Michelle V. Porche,Diane M. Purvin
• Published date: 01 April 2008
• Date: 01 April 2008
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00490.x

’’Never in Our Lifetime’’: Legal Marriage for Same-Sex

Couples in Long-Term Relationships*

Michelle V. Porche Diane M. Purvin**

Abstract: We present data from 4 lesbian and 5 gay male same-sex couples who have been together 20 years or

more. Couples included those legally married and unmarried, with and without children, and were interviewed

within the first year legalized same-sex marriage was enacted in Massachusetts. Using life course theory and case

study methodology, we investigate supports and constraints related to relationship longevity and how these factors

influence the couples’ responses to the option of legal marriage decades into their relationships. Seven out of 9 cou-

ples married immediately or soon after legalization. The two who did not marry reaffirmed and maintained their

commitment. Results are discussed in light of theory and practice within the context of a period of historic change.

Key Words: family diversity, gay/lesbian relationships, marriage, qualitative family research, sexual orientation issues.

Legal marriage for same-sex couples in the United

States is limited to the Commonwealth of Massa-

chusetts, yet this recent change is unprecedented and

marks a historic shift in our understanding of mar-

riage and family. Although established long-term

same-sex relationships are not unique (Blumstein &

Schwartz, 1983; Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brien, 2004),

the recognition of these relationships as legal and

legitimate is both novel and controversial. In this

paper, we present data from four lesbian and five

gay male same-sex couples who have been together

20 years or more and interviewed within the first

year a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage was en-

acted in Massachusetts. Because individuals undergo

developmental changes over the course of their rela-

tionships and the relationship itself is subject to his-

torical forces that shape family trajectories, we take

a life course approach (Elder, 1994, 1998) to answer

the following questions: (a) What supports and con-

straints are related to relationship longevity? and (b)

How do these factors influence the couples’ decision

making in response to the option of legal marriage

decades into their relationships?

Elder (1994, 1998) describes four principles of life

course theory, (a) historical time and place, (b) timing

in lives, (c) linked lives, and (d) human agency, that

apply to the conceptualization of the present study.

Same-sex couples in Massachusetts are uniquely posi-

tioned, temporally and geographically, to have the

opportunity to marry; choices and actions related to

this opportunity may reflect the age of the individuals

in the couple, the length of the relationship, and the

relationship timing, as well as individual supports and

constraints that vary in the context of extended family

and social circles. We were particularly interested in

same-sex couples in long-term relationships because

research suggests that the legally (and often religi-

ously) binding marriage contract influences longevity

for heterosexual couples whereas the lack of such bar-

riers for leaving may make it easier to end relation-

ships (Kurdek, 2000; Peplau & Spalding, 2000).

Using qualitative methodology, we investigated the

decision-making process for couples who suddenly

had the opportunity for state government to legally

recognize their union. Applying a multifocal life course

lens, we sought to identify the factors that guided their

*This work was supported in part by Wellesley Centers for Women core funds, a generous donation from Wellesley alumna Risa Greenlindger, and a grant-in-aid from

the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. The authors wish to thank Lisa Fortuna, Anne Noonan, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-

ments on the manuscript.

**Michelle V. Porche is a senior research scientist at the Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Cheever House, Wellesley, MA 02481

(mporche@wellesley.edu). Diane M. Purvin is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Cheever

House, Wellesley, MA 02481 (dpurvin@caseyfamilyservices.org).

Family Relations, 57 (April 2008), 144–159. Blackwell Publishing.

Copyright 2008 by the National Council on Family Relations.

decisions to marry or not and to understand how

experiences of supports and constraints in their rela-

tionship trajectories influenced these decisions. Sup-

ports included the timing of the relationship, legal

commitments and agreements including home owner-

ship and estate planning, having children, seeking

therapeutic help in managing conflicts, and striving to

be monogamous role models. Constraints were related

to generation and cohort and included stressors of

homophobia and heterosexism. We examined

responses from couples who had been together for two

decades or more, for all intents and purposes ‘‘mar-

ried’’ yet not married. Using a life course approach

also enabled us to explore the role of major milestones

in the couples’ lives that may have functioned as prox-

ies to legal marriage as markers of commitment.

Background

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 con-

stitution allowed same-sex marriage and that civil

unions were not constitutionally equivalent to mar-

riage (Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 2003).

Concurrent with data collection for this study during

the first year of legalization, interest groups attemp-

ted 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 adoles-

cence marked a quicker trajectory of milestones, and

self-identification in the more recent past, concur-

rent with greater acceptance of gays and lesbians,

was associated with a greater openness. Savin-

Williams and Diamond (2000) found gender dif-

ferences 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 dis-

crimination 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 neg-

atively associated with psychological well-being

(Beals & Peplau, 2005). Homophobia and hetero-

sexism are in large measure sanctioned by many reli-

gious and political groups (Hicks & Lee, 2006),

even though limited government protections exist,

varying from state to state. Experiences of discrimi-

nation on the basis of sexual orientation may be per-

petrated 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.

Never in Our Lifetime Porche and Purvin 145