Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Psychological Health Influences of Legal-Marriage and -Partnerships on Same-Sex Couples

Written By

William N. Elwood, Veronica L. Irvin, Benmei Liu, Richard Lee and Nancy Breen

Submitted: 19 October 2019 Reviewed: 23 October 2019 Published: 20 April 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.90249

From the Edited Volume

Psycho-Social Aspects of Human Sexuality and Ethics

Edited by Dhastagir Sultan Sheriff

Chapter metrics overview

806 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


This chapter explores whether Californians in same-sex legal marriages and partnerships reported lower levels of psychological distress than other adult Californians after the 2008 California Supreme Court Decision that legalized same-sex marriage. We pooled 10 years of California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) data and employ a T1-T2 design to approximate a time series design. Dependent variables include overall self-related health, psychological distress, and household income. Independent variables include sexual identity and same-sex spouse. Bi-variate analyses compared self-reported mental and physical health between the two periods. We found decreased reports of poorer health and increased reports of very good health among gay men and lesbian women with legal spouses. Psychological distress decreased for legally coupled gay men and lesbians while increased slightly among unpartnered lesbian women and gay men. Household income increased among coupled lesbian women and gay men and decreased among others. Our project demonstrated positive health influences for Californians with legal same-sex spouses. We recommend future research projects that explore whether and how same- and opposite-sex marriage benefits health, well-being, and prosperity, and for marital status survey questions that are inclusive of sexual and gender identities and elicit the sex/gender of a respondent’s spouse.


  • same-sex marriage and partnerships
  • mental health
  • survey measurement

1. Introduction

The U.S. federal government continues to increase the collection of sexual-orientation data in its surveys [1, 2, 3, 4], recognizes the need to develop a model for LGBT health that integrates behavioral, environmental, and socioeconomic factors, and intends to develop a framework, “to improve the health and well-being of people, … enhancing prosperity in the community and for its residents and businesses” [5] Marriage is one social contract long associated with health, longevity, and prosperity for people in such relationships [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. During the period that preceded local, state, and then national legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. [11], researchers analyzed secondary data and proposed that such legal recognition could ensure some of the health and financial benefits that opposite-sex married couples have long-enjoyed [9, 12, 13].

Research on effects of state-based same-sex marriage or legal-partnerships found more nuanced results [14, 15, 16], for example, increased health insurance coverage among California legally-partnered lesbians compared to heterosexual women with no change among gay men compared to heterosexual men [17]. An Illinois-based study found similar findings among sexual minority women with even more profound effects of insurance coverage among racial/ethnic sexual minority women [18]. Another study found higher odds among legally-partnered California gay men to cite continuous health insurance coverage and regular medical providers than married heterosexual men—yet self-reported poorer health and well-being than heterosexual counterparts [19].

Since 2008, the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) asked questions on same-sex marriage and legal partnerships [20] to reflect the state’s policy progression from requiring employer-sponsored health insurance to same-sex partners in 2005, to locality-based same-sex marriage, to a 2008 State Supreme Court decision that affirmed same-sex marriage. Litigation regarding a statewide ballot initiative led to a suspension of issuing same-sex marriage licenses until 2013 when same-sex marriage licenses were issued once again.

The aim of this article is to explore whether Californians in same-sex legal partnerships and marriages reported lower levels of psychological distress after the 2008 California Supreme Court Decision that legalized same-sex marriage. The stress of homoprejudicial experiences has cumulative negative influences on the actual and perceived mental and physical health among lesbian and gay people [21]. Moreover, there is literature that demonstrates reciprocal links between psychosocial stress, health, and well-being [22, 23].


2. Methods

Our sample includes adult Californians surveyed before and after the California Supreme Court decision (CSCD) in 2008. We obtained data from CHIS for years 2005–2015. Initially fielded biennially, CHIS became a continuous survey in 2011. Administered in five languages, it employs a multi-stage probability design that selects subjects by random-digit dial within geographic strata. Respondents in this analysis include adults ages 18–70 who self-identified as heterosexual, lesbian/gay female, or gay male. CHIS did not ask sexual-identity questions of participants older than 70 [24]. We excluded respondents who said they were bisexual, celibate, non-sexual, or provided no response because the CHIS survey did not ask the sex/gender of a respondent’s spouse [19] and thus lacked the ability to safely intuit the sex/gender of each respondent’s spouse. CHIS obtained human subject approval for participant recruitment and data collection through the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Human Subjects Research Protection determined our study to be exempt from review as it involved the study of existing data recorded such that subjects cannot be identified.

2.1 Dependent variable

2.1.1 Psychological distress

CHIS has fielded the Kessler 6-item (K6) scale to assess nonspecific psychological distress since 2005 [25]. The K6 measures symptoms during the past 30 days: felt nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, worthless, depressed, and felt that everything was an effort—using Likert scales from 0 representing none of the time, to 4 representing all the time. The K6 scale is summed with scores of 0 representing lowest, and 24 representing the highest psychological distress level. Dichotomized moderate mental distress is defined as the sum of K6 scores at or above 5, the optimal lower threshold indicative of moderate mental distress [13]. The K6 continuous measure and the dichotomized moderate mental distress scores have demonstrated reliability and validity in population datasets, including CHIS [26, 27]. We used the dichotomous measure given our small subsample of married and partnered same-sex couples.

2.2 Independent variables

2.2.1 Sexual identity

CHIS participants self-reported as, “straight or heterosexual, as gay, lesbian or homosexual, bisexual, or other.”

2.2.2 Legal marriage and partnership

CHIS asked all participants the standard marital question, “Are you now married, living with a partner in a marriage-like relationship, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married?” The response options do not include same-sex marriage or legal partnership. Previous research has shown that lesbian/gay women and gay men under-report marriage and legal partnership when responding to standard marital status questions [19]. To address under-report of marriage and to reflect the 2008 CSCD, CHIS asked all participants who reported having sex with someone of the same sex within the preceding 12 months whether that sexually-active respondent had a legal same-sex spouse or domestic partner. In addition to legally-partnered and married, we consolidated remaining status into other, a category including unmarried people who may be divorced, widowed, never-married, or living with a partner without legal recognition. We also constructed a binary variable for married/legally-partnered to increase the power of the data to find statistically significant results. There is no way to separate married and legally-partnered for data prior to 2009 because of questionnaire wording. In 2009, revised question wording distinguished married from legally-partnered. We compared percent of moderate psychological distress between married and legally-partnered lesbian women and gay men and found no statistical difference. Therefore, we collapsed married/legally-partnered as one group for our analyses in order to compare pre to post CSCD.

2.2.3 Statistical analyses

We performed all statistical analyses using CHIS data pooled from survey years 2005–2015 and weighted to the California population. Lesbian/gay women and gay men were compared to their heterosexual counterparts on sociodemographic variables. Data collected before 2008 were considered prior to the CSCD and data collected in 2008 and later were considered after the legal decision. The proportion of the sample experiencing moderate mental distress was plotted over time by gender, sexual identity, and couple status. Joinpoint analysis tested if trends in moderate psychological distress changed at specific years. Joinpoint uses weighted least squares to fit the trend model, using the inverse of the standard error as the weight variable.

Bi-variate and logistic regression analyses compared psychological distress using the K6 scale between the periods before and after the CSCD. Bi-variate analyses were replicated only for lesbian/gay women and gay men and compared stress levels between those legally married or partnered as compared with those not. Independent variables of the logistic regression included the main effects of sexual identity, marriage/legal partnership and the timing of CSCD (before or after) and all the two-way interaction effects (i.e., sexual identity x marriage/legal partnership, sexual identity x timing of CSCD, marriage/legal partnership x timing of CSCD) and the three-way interaction effect of the three variables (i.e., sexual identity x marriage/legal partnership x timing of CSCD) while adjusting for the following sociodemographics: Race, marital/partnered status, children in home, education, work status, income, geography, age. The conditional adjusted odds ratios compare the odds of reporting moderate mental health distress for that specific group pre- versus after-CSCD while holding all other variables constant.


3. Results

A total of 192,460 individuals were included in the analysis, with 6995 participants identifying as lesbian/gay women and gay men. Table 1 displays socio-demographics of lesbian, gay, and heterosexual individuals before and after the CSCD. There is an overall increase in non-white populations regardless of sexual orientation and a notable increase in reports of legal married/partnered lesbian women and gay men. Before 2008, only 11 percent of lesbian/gay female and gay male Californians reported being legally married/partnered. That percentage rose to 26.5% after the state Supreme Court decision. Among heterosexuals, marriage slightly declined, from 57.2% before the ruling versus 51.8% after the decision. Table 1 also reports the mean distress score for sexual identity group pre versus post CSCD and shows that lesbian women and gay men reported higher scores of moderate distress than their heterosexual counterparts.

Total Lesbian women and gay men Heterosexual
n wgt % n wgt % N wgt % n wgt % n wgt % n wgt %
Sample size pPercentage) 76,979 24.1 115,481 75.9 2575 19.3 4420 80.7 74,404 24.3 111,061 75.7
RACEETHN: Race/Ethnicity
Latino 15,730 32.8 27,270 36.1 365 24.6 909 33.3 15,365 33.1 26,361 36.3
Asian/PI/AI/AN 7974 13.6 12,654 14.7 150 9.1 279 10.5 7824 13.7 12,375 14.9
African American 3574 5.7 5378 5.7 112 6.2 205 5.2 3462 5.7 5173 5.7
White 47,385 46.2 67,116 41.1 1832 56.8 2842 47.3 45,553 45.9 64,274 40.8
Other 2316 1.6 3063 2.4 116 3.3 185 3.6 2200 1.6 2878 2.3
MARITDPN: Marital or domestic partnered status
Married/Legally Partnered 42,382 55.7 61,386 50.7 275 11.1 1280 26.5 42,107 57.2 60,106 51.8
Other 34,597 44.3 54,095 49.3 2300 88.9 3140 73.5 32,297 42.8 50,955 48.2
Women 45,131 58.6 66,412 57.5 1275 49.5 2251 50.9 43,856 58.9 64,161 57.8
Men 31,848 41.4 49,069 42.5 1300 50.5 2169 49.1 30,548 41.1 46,900 42.2
KIDCNTD: Have child aged 0–17 in household
Yes 30,992 48.8 39,566 43.7 466 22.0 837 24.8 30,526 49.6 38,729 44.5
No 45,987 51.2 75,915 56.3 2109 78.0 3583 75.2 43,878 50.4 72,332 55.5
DEGREE00: Educational attainment
<High School Education 7294 15.8 12,372 15.5 118 7.6 252 10.2 7176 16.0 12,120 15.7
High School Diploma or Some College 38,141 51.1 55,929 49.0 1062 48.0 1973 48.6 37,079 51.2 53,956 49.0
College Degree or Above 31,544 33.1 47,180 35.5 1395 44.4 2195 41.2 30,149 32.7 44,985 35.3
WRKST_R: Working status recode
Employed 54,253 74.4 71,344 69.1 1865 77.0 2734 68.7 52,388 74.3 68,610 69.1
Unemployed, Looking For Work 2050 3.7 7345 8.3 93 3.7 391 10.6 1957 3.7 6954 8.2
Unemployed, Not Looking For Work 20,676 21.8 36,792 22.6 617 19.3 1295 20.6 20,059 21.9 35,497 22.7
HHINCOME: Household Income
Household Income Under 350% FPL 32,480 48.8 57,242 55.2 992 39.6 2124 50.9 31,488 49.1 55,118 55.4
Household Income Greater Than or Equal To 350% FPL 44,499 51.2 58,239 44.8 1583 60.4 2296 49.1 42,916 50.9 55,943 44.6
GEOGRAPHY: Geography
Metro 71,430 97.7 105,968 97.8 2376 98.1 4059 98.1 69,054 97.7 101,909 97.8
Non-Metro 5549 2.3 9513 2.2 199 1.9 361 1.9 5350 2.3 9152 2.2
SELF_HEALTH: Self Health
Poor 3335 3.6 5614 3.6 155 4.5 251 4.1 3180 3.5 5363 3.6
Fair 9647 13.9 16,890 15.1 329 13.8 700 17.4 9318 13.9 16,190 15.0
Good 21,385 30.0 33,532 30.3 698 28.0 1312 29.8 20,687 30.1 32,220 30.3
Very Good 25,423 31.5 36,987 31.6 833 31.9 1425 31.2 24,590 31.4 35,562 31.7
Excellent 17,189 21.1 22,458 19.4 560 21.8 732 17.6 16,629 21.1 21,726 19.4
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Mean (Standard Error) 41.07 0.02 41.83 0.03 38.66 0.40 37.83 0.40 41.14 0.03 42.01 0.03
K6SUM: K6Sum
Mean (Standard Error) 3.61 0.02 3.66 0.03 4.84 0.13 5.06 0.13 3.57 0.02 3.60 0.03
PSY_INDICATOR: Psychological distress indicator
Mean (Standard Error) 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.43 0.02 0.44 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00
Poor/Fair 0.17 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.19 0.00

Table 1.

Psychological health influences and the 2008 California supreme court decision: Descriptive statistics for California adults 18–70, by sexual identity.

Table 2 provides descriptive results expressly for lesbian women and gay men by marital/partnered status pre versus post-CSCD. Employment was stable among married/partnered respondents, but unemployment increased among others. Household income increased among married/partnered respondents but decreased among others. Notably, the percentage of respondents who had a child in the home decreased from 51 to 36% among married/partnered lesbian and gay respondents. Mean scores of moderate mental distress decreased for married or legally partnered but increased for other following the CSCD.

Married/legally partnered Other
n wgt % N wgt % n wgt % N wgt %
Sample size (percentage) 275 9.1 1280 90.9 2300 22.5 3140 77.5
Women 184 66.9 763 59.6 1091 47.4 1488 47.4
Men 91 33.1 517 40.4 1209 52.6 1652 52.3
RACEETHN: Race/ethnicity
Latino 54 31.1 215 27.7 311 23.7 694 35.3
Asian/PI/AI/AN 38 15.4 84 8.9 112 8.4 195 11.1
African American 4 0.6 29 2.6 108 6.9 176 6.2
White 169 50.8 908 57.7 1663 57.5 1934 43.6
Other 10 2.1 44 3.1 106 3.5 141 3.9
KIDCNTD: Have child aged 0–17 in household
Yes 135 50.9 362 35.6 331 18.4 475 20.9
No 140 49.1 918 64.4 1969 81.6 2665 79.1
DEGREE: Educational attainment
<High school education 16 9.5 62 7.1 102 7.4 190 11.3
High school diploma or Some college 117 42.8 455 39.7 945 48.6 1518 51.8
College degree or above 142 47.7 763 53.2 1253 44.0 1432 36.9
WRKST_R: Working status recode
Employed 194 72.6 858 72.3 1671 77.5 1876 67.5
Unemployed, looking for work 9 4.1 58 5.1 84 3.6 333 12.6
Unemployed, not looking for work 72 23.3 364 22.6 545 18.8 931 19.9
HHINCOME: Household Income
Household income under 350% FPL 113 44.3 390 32.8 879 39.1 1734 57.4
Household income greater than or equal to 350% FPL 162 55.7 890 67.2 1421 60.9 1406 42.6
GEOGRAPHY: Geography
Metro 250 97.4 1185 98.4 2126 98.2 2874 98.0
Non-metro 25 2.6 95 1.6 174 1.8 266 2.0
SELF_HEALTH: Self Health
Poor 11 4.4 54 3.0 144 4.5 197 4.4
Fair 36 15.5 183 14.1 293 13.6 517 18.6
Good 85 32.3 349 28.6 613 27.5 963 30.2
Very Good 89 27.8 445 36.5 744 32.4 980 29.2
Excellent 54 20.1 249 17.8 506 22.1 483 17.6
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Mean (standard error) 40.64 1.04 44.01 0.65 38.41 0.42 35.61 0.43
K6SUM: K6Sum
Mean (standard error) 5.09 0.38 4.14 0.22 4.81 0.14 5.40 0.17
PSY_INDICATOR: Psychological distress indicator
Mean (standard error) 0.50 0.05 0.33 0.03 0.43 0.02 0.48 0.02
Poor/Fair 0.20 0.04 0.17 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.23 0.02

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for lesbian women and gay men by marital/partnered status.

We explored the relationship the 2008 CSCD on self-reported moderate psychological distress among legally married or partnered and other respondents by sexual identity. A higher percentage of Lesbian women and gay men reported rates of distress than heterosexual counterparts. There was no change in the proportion of lesbian women and gay men who experienced moderate mental psychological distress before and after the CSCD. However, this result changes when we compare those who are legally partnered or married compared to other relationship status Legally married or partnered lesbian women and gay men were half as likely to report moderate psychosocial distress after the CSCD [OR, 0.52] as compared to prior to the CSCD. In contrast, moderate psychological distress remained relatively unchanged among other lesbian women and gay men [1.04], married heterosexuals [0.94] and other heterosexuals [0.94]. These results and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for statistically significant relationships appear in Table 3.

Full sample of adults to compare lesbian/gay female, gay male, and heterosexual married/legally-partnered and otherwise single
All Lesbian and Gay individuals All Heterosexual individuals
Number of respondents 2575 4420 74,404 111,061
Percent married or legally partnered 11.1% 26.5% 57.2% 51.8%
Psychological Distress mean and standard deviation
Kessler 6-item (K6) continuous score (0–24)
4.84 (0.13) 5.06 (0.13) 3.57 (0.02) 3.60 (0.03)
Percent reporting at least moderate mental distress (yes/no) K6 score of > = 5 43% 44% 29% 29%
Sub-set of only adults who are lesbian and gay to compare between those married/legally-partnered and otherwise single
Number of respondents 279 1280 2300 3140
Psychological distress mean and standard deviation
Kessler 6-item (K6) continuous score (0–24)
5.09 (0.38) 4.14 (0.22) 4.81 (0.14) 5.40 (0.17)
Percent reporting at least moderate mental distress (yes/no) K6 score of > = 5 50% 33% 43% 48%
Conditional adjusted odds ratio & 95% CI of moderate mental distress
Post-CSCD vs. Pre-CSCD
0.52 (0.33, 0.82) 1.04 (0.85, 1.29)

Table 3.

Mean scores of psychological distress and percent reporting moderate mental distress pre and post the 2008 California supreme court decision (CSCD) to legalize same-sex marriage: CHIS data 2005–2015.

Data in cells represent sample sizes, percentage married, mean and standard deviation for continuous version of the Kessler 6-item scale and percent reporting moderate mental distress (score of 5 or higher on the Kessler scale).

We conducted Joinpoint analyses to determine if moderate psychological distress decreased at specific years. Figure 1 displays percent of respondents experiencing at least moderate psychological distress by sexual identity, gender and marital status from 2005 through 2015. Joinpoint analyses were conducted separately for sub-groups by gender, marital status and sexual identity. Distress levels remain relatively stable over time among married and other heterosexual women and among married heterosexual males. Moderate distress percentages dip in 2013 among married/partnered lesbians and gays as a group (lesbians and gays) and separately (married/partnered gays, married partnered lesbians). Distress increased in this same year among other gay men and lesbian women. Distress scores increased from their 2013 levels among married/partnered lesbians and gays in 2014 and decreased only among gay men in 2015, the year of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. However, none of these trends were significant as determined by the p-values for each slope in Joinpoint analyses. In addition, there was no significant changing point in terms of year for any of the slopes for moderate psychological distress for any of the sub-groups.

Figure 1.

Trend of moderate phycological distress by marital status and sexual identity.


4. Discussion

Before same-sex marriage became legal throughout the United States in 2015, clinical researchers promoted marriage equality as a health promotion strategy for lesbian/gay women and gay men [8, 12, 28]. Others ventured that marriage equality not only would improve lesbian/gay health, but also would benefit society at large [29]. Though our project was more circumscribed, we found some confirmation of our exploratory aim: Many adult Californians in legal same-sex partnerships and marriages reported lower levels of psychological distress than their single counterparts following the CSCD.

The inelegant results in this quasi-natural experiment may be no surprise, as this time period was fraught with instability regarding the state legality of same-sex marriage/partnerships and the stay of issuing same-sex marriage licenses between November 2008 and June 2014. Though Californians in same-sex unions maintained their legal status at the ends of the disputes, during this tumultuous legal period some undoubtedly worried whether their marital status would continue. Engaged same-sex couples were precluded from marriage licenses. Those with same-sex orientations may have experienced stressors related to passage of the state referendum Proposition 8 and the court cases appealing that referendum that abolished marriage for same-sex couples. In sum, this period was uncertain on the status of same-sex marriage and mental health self-reports fluctuated during periods when the issue’s status also changed (Figure 1, Table 3). Reports of distress declined over time for legally-married or -partnered lesbian women and gay men while distress increased for their single counterparts. However, the changes in slope were not significant and no single year showed as the changing point when using Joinpoint analyses. In contrast, distress reports among heterosexual women and men remained relatively stable between 2009 and 2015. Our results suggest that marriage may have had a positive influence on mental health for legally-married and -partnered gay and lesbian people even during this turbulent period.

Recent studies posit that people in legal same-sex relationships have higher relationship stability, more financial resources, and better health outcomes than couples who cohabit without legal recognition [19, 30] and that marriage may mitigate minority stress effects among same-sex and other marginalized couples [21]. Our project found lower psychological distress levels among many lesbian/gay women and gay male Californians, though this health benefit was not uniform over time across same-sex marriages or legal partnerships—perhaps a reflection of the time period during which the continued legality of same-sex marriage in California was uncertain. The support we found for our hypothesis, even when the data were collected during a period in which the legality of same-sex marriage was questioned, reinforces a finding of a National Academies report that encourages research to understand the qualities of resilience unique to sexual minorities and how that relates to their overall health [3].

We also found evidence that gay and lesbian CHIS respondents who were legally-married and -partnered were substantively more likely to be employed and to have college educations than those unmarried or not legally partnered. That said, marriage equality in California can find its roots in 2005 legislation that required private employers to extend health insurance benefits to employees’ same-sex partners just as the benefits were extended to opposite-sex spouses—a time when same-sex marriage was unlawful. An earlier study found this policy had no influence on gay men but was of great benefit to lesbian women [17]. Our work, in light of previous studies, suggests more research is needed to explore whether and how same- and opposite-sex marriage is associated with benefits to health, well-being, and prosperity across communities.

Minority stress theory posits that prejudicial experiences over the lifecourse have a negative impact on the actual and perceived mental and physical health of lesbian/gay people [18, 21, 31]. Full legal protections for sexual- and gender-minorities are incomplete; however, an exploration of the influence of national marriage equality on health issues of the multifaceted, non-exclusively-heterosexual, cis- and transgender people who comprise sexual minorities may be worthwhile.

Studies using future iterations of CHIS can determine whether the mental health benefits we found continue over time and whether other self-reported health benefits emerge. For example, extant research suggests that marriage equality has, at minimum, mental health benefits for non-heterosexual youth for whom suicide is the second most frequent cause of death [32, 33, 34].

Additional research projects might explore these questions across U.S. populations beyond California. To explore the implications of minority stress theory more thoroughly, future projects might consider biopsychosocial measures typically associated with stress responses—for example, to explore changes or differences in telomere lengths [35] and/or cortisol levels [36] in addition to self-reported data from single and married lesbian/gay women, gay men, and additional sexual and gender minorities over time. Longitudinal studies in this regard would enhance both understanding and health promotion among sexual minorities.

4.1 Limitations

First, as CHIS is a continuous cross-sectional study, our findings suggest a trend in the populace rather than a change in a discrete set of Californians. Second is that legal partnerships and legal marriage did not convey identical rights and privileges between 2005 and 2008, a period that included concurrent, limited periods of city- and county-based same-sex marriages in California. Moreover, litigation precluded issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples between November 2008 and June 2013. Disparate results among legally-partnered, married, and other gay male and lesbian Californians perhaps reflect that uncertainty. Third, we were unable to report results separately by legal same-sex marriage and partnership between 2013 and 2015 though our results nonetheless appear to correspond with the historical events related to this issue during the period. Fourth is the need to exclude bisexually-identified Californians because the survey’s order and skip pattern complicate notions of self-identification and self-report of sexual behavior. For example, a bisexually-identified respondent who reported no sex with a same-sex partner in the last 12 months would not have been asked the question of same-sex legal partnership/marriage. Additionally, the partner’s sex/gender and sexual orientation were not reported.

This fourth limitation demonstrates that a respondent’s reported sexual identity is not necessarily equivalent to that respondent’s sexual behavior or to the sex/gender of that individual’s spouse—particularly in our era of increasingly fluid sexual and gender identities [37, 38, 39] and growing researcher attention to the intersectionality framework to integrate the complexity of individual lived experiences within efforts to improve care and research in health and well-being [40, 41, 42]. For a more comprehensive understanding of the influences of sexual identity, gender identity, and marital status on human health and well-being, survey questions may elicit not only the sex/gender identity of a respondent but also of the respondent’s spouse, for example, to help determine the influence of same- or opposite-sex marriage on the health of bisexual or transgender people.

Researchers adapting CHIS to account more precisely for same-sex marriage influences could follow the current question on “now married, living with a partner in a marriage-like relationship, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married” [43] by asking whether the spouse/partner referenced in the previous question is the same or opposite sex as the respondent.

There are thorough conversations across and outside the academy that will lead to comprehensive revisions of survey methodologies to measure the identity and behavior of respondents and their respective spouses. In the interim, the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) provides a best practice on how to design and adapt questions to collect data that can explain the influence of legal marriage and partnerships on health and well-being, including sex/gender and sexual orientation identities [1]. Research and surveillance methodologies occasionally must respond quickly to provide data-driven public health recommendations. This study demonstrates CHIS’s ability to explore the health impact of marriage for same-sex couples, and a need for survey questions to elicit information about marital status and the sex/gender of a respondent’s spouse inclusive of sexual identities. Such collection is critical for data-driven health recommendations as sexual and gender identities become increasingly fluid and nuanced.



The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research conducts the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) provided financial support for the design and implementation of previous iterations of CHIS. OBSSR and NCI supported access to the dataset created and analyzed for this project.


Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.



This article represents only the authors’ views and perspectives, not the positions of the National Institutes of Health or the U.S. Government.


  1. 1. Federal Interagency Working Group on Improving Measurement of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Federal Surveys. Toward a Research Agenda for Measuring Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Federal Surveys: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps. 2016. Washington: Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. Available from: [Accessed: 17 June 2019]
  2. 2. Healthy People 2020. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 2020. Available from: [Accessed: 18 June 2019]
  3. 3. Institute of Medicine Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington: National Academies Press; 2011
  4. 4. Langin K. NSF moves to pilot LGBT questions on national workforce surveys. Science. 7 November 2018:1126 DOI: 10.1126/science.caredit.aav9886
  5. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surgeon General’s call to action: “Community health and prosperity.” Federal Register, 83, 4523–4524. 2018. Available from: [Accessed: 17 June 2019]
  6. 6. Boswell J. Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. New York: Villard Books; 1994
  7. 7. Foucault M. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction(R. Hurley, trans). New York: Pantheon Books; 1978
  8. 8. Kealy-Bateman W, Pryor L. Marriage equality is a mental health issue. Australasian Psychiatry. 2015;23:540-543. DOI: 10.1177/1039856215592318
  9. 9. Ponce NA, Cochran SD, Pizer JC, Mays VM. The effects of unequal access to health insurance for same-sex couples in California. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2010;29:1539-1548. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0583
  10. 10. Waite LJ, Gallagher M. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
  11. 11. Supreme Court of the United States. James Obergefell et al., Petitioners. v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. Docket No. 14–556. 2015. Available from: [Accessed: 17 June 2019]
  12. 12. Gonzales G. Same-sex marriage—A prescription for better health. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;370:1373-1376. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1400254
  13. 13. Hatzenbuehler ML, O’Cleirigh C, Grasso C, Meyer K, Saffren S, Bradford J. Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of Public Health. 2012;102:285-291. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300382
  14. 14. LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, Bowen K. Legal marriage, unequal recognition, and mental health among same-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2018;80:397-408. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12460
  15. 15. Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, Horne SG. Psychological distress well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010;24:82-86. DOI: 10.1037/a0017942
  16. 16. Tran LD. Moderate effects of same-sex legislation on dependent employer-based insurance coverage among sexual minorities. Medical Care Research and Review. 2016;73:752-768. DOI: 10.1177/1077558715625560
  17. 17. Buchmueller TC, Carpenter CS. The effect of requiring private employers to extend health benefit eligibility to same-sex partners of employees: Evidence from California. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2012;31:388-403. DOI: 10.1002/pam.21603
  18. 18. Everett BG, Hatzenbuehler ML, Hughes TL. The impact of civil union legislation on minority stress, depression, and hazardous drinking in a diverse sample of sexual-minority women: A quasi-natural experiment. Social Science and Medicine. 2016;169:180-190. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.09.036
  19. 19. Elwood WN, Irvin VL, Sun Q, Breen N. Measuring the influence of legally recognized partnerships on the health and well-being of same-sex couples: Utility of the California health interview survey. LGBT Health. 2017;4:153-160. DOI: 10.1089/lgbt.2015.0085
  20. 20. California Health Interview Survey. CHIS 2009 Methodology Report Series: Report 4–Response Rates. 2011. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Available from: [Accessed: 17 June 2019]
  21. 21. LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, Wight RG. Minority stress and stress proliferation among same-sex and other marginalized couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015;77:40-59. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12160
  22. 22. Cunliffe VT. The epigenetic impacts of social stress: How does social adversity become biologically embedded? Epigenomics. 2016;8:1653-1669. DOI: 10.2217/epi-2016-0075
  23. 23. Smyth JM, Sliwinski MJ, Zawadzki MJ, Scott SB, Conroy DE, Lanza ST, et al. Everyday stress response targets in the science of behavior change. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2018;101:20-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2017.09.009
  24. 24. Institute of Medicine. Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Electronic Health Records: Workshop Summary. Washington: National Academies Press; 2013
  25. 25. Kessler RC, Green JG, Gruber MJ, Sampson NA, Bromet E, Cuitan M, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: Results from the WHO world mental health (WMH) survey initiative. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2010;19(suppl 1):4-22. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.310
  26. 26. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SL, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine. 2002;32:959-976. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291702006074
  27. 27. Prochaska J, Sung H, Max W, Shi Y, Ong M. Validity study of the K6 scale as a measure of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and utilization. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2012;21:88-97. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1349
  28. 28. Campion EW, Morrisey S, Drazen JM. In support of same-sex marriage. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372:1852-1853. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1505179
  29. 29. Rauch J. Gay Marriage: Why it Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York: Times Books; 2004
  30. 30. Wight RG, LeBlanc AJ, Badgett MVL. Same-sex legal marriage and psychological wellbeing: Findings from the California health interview survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103:339-346. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301113
  31. 31. Holman EG. Theoretical extensions of minority stress theory for sexual minority individuals in the workplace: A cross-contextual understanding of minority stress processes. Journal of Family Theory and Review. 2018;10:165-180. DOI: 10.1111/jftr.12246
  32. 32. Di Giacomo E, Krausz M, Colmegna F, Aspesi F, Clerici Y, M. Estimating the risk of attempted suicide among sexual minority youths: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics. 2018;172:1145-1152. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2731
  33. 33. Kann L, Olsen EO, McManus T, Harris WA, Shanklin SL, Flint KH, et al. Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-related behaviors among students in grades 9–12: United States and selected sites, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2016;65:1-102. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6509a1
  34. 34. Raifman J, Moscoe E, Austin SB, McConnell M. Difference-in-differences analysis of the association between state same-sex marriage policies and adolescent suicide attempts. JAMA Pediatrics. 2017;17:350-356. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529
  35. 35. Montpetit AJ, Alhareeri AA, Montpetit M, Starkweather AR, Elmore LW, Filler K, et al. Telomere length: A review of methods for measurement. Nursing Research. 2014;63:289-299. DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000037
  36. 36. Hengge UR, Reimann G, Schäfer A, Goos M. HIV-positive men differ in immunologic but not catecholamine response to an acute psychological stressor. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003;28:643-656. DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4530(02)00048-3
  37. 37. Chen MJ, McCann-Crosby B, Gunn S, Georgiadis P, Placencia F, Mann D, et al. Fluidity models in ancient Greece and current practices of sex assignment. Seminars in Perinatology. 2017;41:206-2013. DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2017.03.014
  38. 38. Katz-Wise SL, Hyde JS. Sexual fluidity and related attitudes and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2015;44:1459-1470. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-014-0420-1
  39. 39. Oswalt SB, Evans S, Drott A. Beyond alphabet soup: Helping college health professionals understand sexual fluidity. Journal of American College Health. 2016;64:502-508. DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2016.1170688
  40. 40. Hankivsky O. Women’s health, men’s health, and gender and health: Implications of intersectionality. Social Science and Medicine. 2012;74:1712-1720. DOI: 10.1016/socscimed.2011.11.029
  41. 41. Warner LR. A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles. 2008;59:454-463. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5
  42. 42. Wilson Y, White A, Jefferson A, Danis M. Broadening the conversation about intersectionality in clinical medicine. American Journal of Bioethics. 2019;19:W1-W5. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1574318
  43. 43. California Health Interview Survey. CHIS 2018: Adult questionnaire, Version 1.52. 2019. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Available from: [Accessed: 17 June 2019]

Written By

William N. Elwood, Veronica L. Irvin, Benmei Liu, Richard Lee and Nancy Breen

Submitted: 19 October 2019 Reviewed: 23 October 2019 Published: 20 April 2020