, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 573–590 | Cite as

Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from California

  • Christopher Carpenter
  • Gary J. Gates


Much recent research on sexual minorities has used couples-based samples, which—by construction—provide no information on nonpartnered individuals. We present the first systematic empirical analysis of partnership and cohabitation among self-identified gay men and lesbians using two independent, large, population-wwbased data sources from California. These data indicate that 37%–46% of gay men and 51%–62% of lesbians aged 18–59 are in cohabiting partnerships (compared with 62% of heterosexual individuals in coresidential unions at comparable ages). Unlike previous research, we find that white and highly educated gay men and lesbians are more likely to be partnered, and we confirm that same-sex cohabiting partners in our data have demographic characteristics that are similar to California same-sex couples from Census 2000. We also present the first detailed analysis of officially registered domestic partnerships in California. We find that almost half of partnered lesbians are officially registered with the local or state government, while less than a quarter of partnered gay men are officially registered. We conclude with implications of our findings for couples-based research on gay men and lesbians, as well as recommendations for survey data collection.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, G., T. Noack, A. Seierstad, and H. Weedon-Fekjaer. 2006. “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden.” Demography 43:79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badgett, M.V.L. and M.A. Rogers. 2003. “Left Out of the Count: Missing Same-Sex Couples in Census 2000.” Amherst, MA: Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Badgett, M.V.L., G.J. Gates, and N. Maisel. Forthcoming.“Registered Domestic Partnerships Among Gay Men and Lesbians: The Role of Economic Factors.” Review of Economics in the Household.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, L. and G.J. Gates. 2004. “The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Children and Their Same-Sex Parents.” Report. Washington, DC, Human Rights Campaign Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Black, D., G. Gates, S. Sanders, and L. Taylor. 2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence From Available Systematic Data Sources.” Demography 37:139 -54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — 2006. “The Measurement of Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Couples in the 2000 U.S. Census.” Working paper. California Center for Population Research, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  7. Black, D., S. Sanders, and L. Taylor. 2007. “The Economics of Lesbian and Gay Families.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2):53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein, P. and P. Schwartz. 1983. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: William Morrow & Co.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, C. 2004. “New Evidence on Gay and Lesbian Household Incomes.” Contemporary Economic Policy 22:78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. — 2005. “Self-reported Sexual Orientation and Earnings: Evidence From California.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 58:258–73.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, C. Forthcoming.“Sexual Orientation, Work, and Income in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Economics.Google Scholar
  12. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2004.“The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages.” Available online at /06-21- SameSexMarriage.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. Festy, P. 2007.“Enumerating Same-Sex Couples in Censuses and Population Registers.” Demographic Research, Volume 17, article 12:339-68. Available online at http://www.demographic-research .org/Volumes/Vol17/12/.Google Scholar
  14. Gates, G.J., H. Lau, and R.B. Sears. 2006.“Race and Ethnicity of Same-Sex Couples in California: Data From Census 2000.” Report. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.Google Scholar
  15. Gates, G.J and J. Ost. 2004. The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  16. General Register Office. 2006.“6,516 Civil Partnerships Formed in England and Wales by 31 March.” Press release from United Kingdom Office of National Statistics, June 23.Google Scholar
  17. Kurdek, L.A. 1988. “Perceived Social Support in Gays and Lesbians in Cohabiting Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:504–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. — 1998. “Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence From Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:553–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. — 2006. “Differences Between Partners From Heterosexual, Gay, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples.” Journal of Marriage and Family 68:509–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laumann, E., J. Gagnon, R. Michael, and S. Michaels. 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. The Office of Legislative Council. 2002.“Report of the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission.” Office of Legislative Council, Montpelier, VT.Google Scholar
  22. Patterson, C.J. 2000. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62:1052–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Romero, A.P., A.K. Baumle, M.V.L. Badgett, and G.J. Gates. 2007.“Census Snapshot: United States.” The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Available online at /williamsinstitute/publications/USCensusSnapshot.pdf.Google Scholar
  24. Seltzer, J.A. 2000. “Families Formed Outside of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62:1247–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smock, P.J. 2000. “Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Carpenter
    • 1
  • Gary J. Gates
    • 2
  1. 1.The Paul Merage School of Business at UC IrvineIrvine
  2. 2.The Williams InstituteUCLA School of LawLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations