Abstract
The legalization of same-sex marriage in some American states has brought about another legal issue: same-sex divorce. This chapter examines that topic through an investigation of the community sentiment of judges, legislators, and rank-and-file citizens with a particular focus on the degree and patterns of change in sentiment. We pay particular attention to patterns in those states where same-sex marriages are not recognized and find some evidence that judges may have slightly more positive sentiment than the mass public. Through a survey in a non-marriage equality state, we find evidence that the variables linked to marriage attitudes are in step with those regarding divorce. This survey also shows evidence that such attitudes are impervious to priming effects. As same-sex marriage evolves in law and public opinion, we anticipate that divorces will continue to play a central role in the debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a recent journalistic account of the personal and legal aspects of same-sex divorce, see Green (2013).
- 2.
Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582 (1859).
- 3.
The dynamics around the law’s origins can be found in Nevada Press Association, “From 1931: Divorce, Gambling Get Nevada Governor’s Signature,” http://www.rgj.com/story/life/2014/04/01/divorce-gambling-get-governors-signature/7135497/
- 4.
Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906).
- 5.
North Carolina immediately took the cases back to trial and challenged whether the two divorcees had actually gained residency in Nevada; the jury considered the evidence, deemed the tourists as nonresidents of Nevada, and reaffirmed the bigamy conviction. When the case returned to the Court in 1945 in Williams II, swing justices on the Court upheld the convictions saying that the couple was properly divorced in the eyes of Nevada but that they had taken a risk that North Carolina would not recognize the divorce based on the lingering questions regarding whether they had become residents of Nevada during their short stay at a motor lodge.
- 6.
Sherrer v. Sherrer 334 U.S. 343 (1948).
- 7.
Section 2 of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.” This section of the law remained in effect even after the landmark Windsor v. United States decision in 2013.
- 8.
Later in 2004, the voters of Ohio also passed a separate DOMA constitutional amendment (James Dao, “Same-Sex Marriage Issue Key to Some G.O.P. Races,” New York Times, 4 November 2004).
- 9.
Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A. 2d 956 (2007).
- 10.
In addition to the Maryland case discussed below, these states include Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Washington (Holzer, 2011).
- 11.
Port v. Cowan, 46 Md. 435 (2012).
- 12.
Port v. Cowan, p. 14.
- 13.
Christiansen v. Christiansen 253 P. 3d 153 Supreme Court of Wyoming (2011).
- 14.
Christiansen v. Christiansen, p. 4.
- 15.
Ibid.
- 16.
In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 326 S.W. 3d 654 (2010).
- 17.
State of Texas v. Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly (2013).
- 18.
- 19.
The Winthrop Poll is produced by the Social and Behavioral Research Lab at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, SC. The Winthrop Poll is paid for by Winthrop University with additional support from the West Forum on Politics and Policy at Winthrop University.
- 20.
Phone calls were made during weekday evenings, all day Saturday, and Sunday afternoon and evening. Weekday daytime calls are generally not made to avoid oversampling those who are more likely to be at home during the day (e.g., retirees, stay-at-home moms, etc.). Conducting weekend calls is important to avoid systematically excluding certain populations (such as those who may work second or third shift during the week).
- 21.
Both the RDD sample and the wireless sample were purchased from Survey Sampling International (SSI). Phone numbers selected for the survey were redialed five or more times in an attempt to reach a respondent. Once a household was reached, we also employed procedures to randomize within households for RDD sample. Additionally, the wireless sample was screened for wireless-only status since individuals who have a cell phone and a landline already have an established probability of appearing in the RDD. Computerized autodialers were not used in order to ensure the survey of wireless phones complied with the Telephone Consumers Protection Act and all FCC rules regarding contacting wireless telephones.
- 22.
The authors appreciate the assistance of Marvin Overby in the design of the survey. The baseline marriage question was: “Currently nine states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriages. Do you think South Carolina should or should not recognize the legality of such unions performed in other states?”
- 23.
After the initial question, for those who provided an initial response, they were then asked, “Do you feel that way very strongly or somewhat strongly?” This created four ordinal responses (very strongly should, somewhat strongly should, somewhat strongly should not, very strongly should not). All other responses were coded as missing.
- 24.
More states now permit same-sex marriage but nine was the correct number at the time of the survey.
References
Andersen, E. A. (2009). The gay divorcee: The case of the missing argument. In S. Barclay, M. Bernstein, & A. Marshall (Eds.), Queer mobilizations: LGBT activists confront the law (pp. 281–319). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011). When gay people get married: What happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Barth, J., Overby, L. M., & Huffmon, S. H. (2009). Community context, personal contact, and support for an anti-gay rights referendum. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 355–365.
Barth, J., & Parry, J. (2009). 2 > 1 + 1?: The impact of contact with gay and lesbian couples on attitudes about gays/lesbians and gay-related policies. Politics and Policy, 37, 32–51.
Cantor, D. J. (2006). The practical benefits of marriage. In D. J. Cantor, E. Cantor, J. C. Black, & C. D. Barrett (Eds.), Same-sex marriage: The legal and psychological evolution in America (pp. 135–148). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Celello, K. (2009). Making marriage work: A history of marriage and divorce in the 20th-century. U.S. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Confessore, N. (2010, June 15). Is New York ready for no-fault divorce? New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/nyregion/16divorce.html?_r=0
Estin, A. A. (2007). Family law federalism: Divorce and the constitution. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 16, 381–432.
Fikac, P. (2013, November 5). Texas Supreme Court hears same-sex divorce case. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-Supreme-Court-hears-same-sex-divorce-case-4956859.php
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1994). History and current status of divorce in the United States. Children and Divorce, 4, 1.
Green, J. (2013). From “I do” to “I’m done.” New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/gay-divorce-2013-3/
Holzer, E. A. (2011). DOMA statutes and same-sex marriage litigation. Student Scholarship. Retrieved from http://open.wmitchell.edu/stusch/2
Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Lewis, G. B. (2005). Same-sex marriage and the 2004 presidential election. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38, 195–199.
Mezey, S. G. (2007). Queers in court: Gay rights law and public policy. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Mezey, S. G. (2009). Gay families and the courts: The quest for equal rights. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pierceson, J. (2013). Same-sex marriage in the United States: The road to the Supreme Court. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Preston S. H., & McDonald, J. (1979). The incidence of divorce within cohorts of American marriages contracted since the civil war. Demography, 16, 1–25.
Stanton, E. C. (1871). Of marriage and divorce. Gifts of Speech. Retrieved from http://gos.sbc.edu/s/stantoncady3.html
Vlosky, D. A., & Monroe, P. A. (2002). The effectiveness date of no-fault divorce laws in the 50 states. Family Relations, 51, 317–324.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix. Coding of independent variables
Appendix. Coding of independent variables
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barth, J., Huffmon, S.H. (2015). Sentiment Toward Same-Sex Divorce. In: Miller, M., Blumenthal, J., Chamberlain, J. (eds) Handbook of Community Sentiment. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1899-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1899-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1898-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1899-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)