Today is the one-year anniversary of the momentous Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage equality nationally. Since then, Gallup estimates that more than 120,000 same-sex couples have tied the knot, or nearly half of the same-sex couples living together in the U.S.
Many of those marriages happened in the first heady rush (and bottled up demand) after the Court ruling, with the numbers leveling off to a more steady level. Marriage is now supported by a solid majority of Americans, and the end of civilization as predicted by opponents has yet to happen. (That’s pending a Trump presidency, but that’s another story.)
But does even something as overwhelmingly groundbreaking as marriage equality carry unintended consequences? The one that may be the most worrisome is one that is plaguing marriage in general: income inequality.
As an institution, marriage has been changing over the past several decades. In the 1950s, pretty much everyone got married at the same rate, regardless of education level. But that has changed. More recently, walking down the aisle is something that educated and white people are more likely to do than people with less education. That divide also applies to some racial and ethnic minorities, who are unfortunately less likely to be four-year college graduates.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The divergence in marriage patterns isn’t just an academic issue. It has an effect on income inequality. Straight people are now much more likely to marry people of similar earning power than they were several decades ago. Straight married couples are more likely to have higher incomes and more assets (like a home) than couples who just live together. At the same time, working class and poor people are finding their lives filled with uncertainty, particularly financially. The instability of lower-wage jobs has made marriage increasingly the purview of the middle-class. Marriage assumes that your life is relatively settled. If you are stuck in an Uber-economy with uncertain wages and no benefits, marriage may well be the last thing on your mind.
Which is just what the LGBT community doesn’t need: another fault line of race and class along which to fracture.
Now marriage is not a cudgel used to beat the unmarried. That’s the way the religious right works. People have the right to live the lives that they want. But the fact remains that our society is structured in such a way that marriage offers real benefits. If those benefits aren’t available to everyone, then there’s something wrong.
Maybe same-sex married couples will prove to be the exception to the growing tie between marriage and money. They may well be more likely to form mixed income families, just as they are more likely to form mixed racial relationships than their hetero counterparts. After just one year, there’s not enough data to tell. But if marriage equality means that white couples in white collar jobs are the ones likeliest to get married and to enjoy the financial benefits of marriage, then in retrospect the victory of a year ago may be just the beginning of our hard work, not the end.
onthemark
“But if marriage equality means that white couples in white collar jobs are the ones likeliest to get married….” Funny that you’re worried about this NOW. This is exactly why a lot of gay people never got very excited about the marriage issue. And the marriage fanatics got mad at them without ever asking why. At least now you’re finally figuring out why!
If a couple has money and real estate (and maybe kids), and in-laws to impress: yeah, then marriage has benefits. If a couple is gay and poor, there are very few benefits and hardly any incentive to do it, especially if they don’t personally even know any gay married couples.
onthemark
“[M]arriage is not a cudgel used to beat the unmarried.” LOL. Wanna bet? It was nice of you to toss in that line, John Gallagher, but I predict there will be a LOT of “cudgeling” in the comments to follow!
etseq
“Marriage” doesn’t cause anything – assortive mating is human nature and has always existed and whether marriage existed or not wouldn’t impact how people form families. Where does this idea come from that gays are somehow special snowflakes that are exempt from the same forces that effect the greater society – this weird notion exists on the right and the left – the right thinks we are moral perverts and the left thinks we are some revolutionary vanguard who will usher in the Revolution. This reductionist attitude is really stupid…
MarionPaige
As I see it, the real unintended “adverse” impact of marriage equality is on the long-term allegedly loving gay couples who DON’T marry. It’s like,
The ever present question when you see these couples seem to be: “If they are so loving and committed to each other, why aren’t you married? When they can now marry.
Take the one instance of a gay couple vlogging on youtube about their perfect relationship and yet, while they can now marry, they aren’t. Or,
Take the hypothetical in which one well off party in a gay relationship opens a restaurant and, not only does he openly advertise that HE alone is the owner of the business but he makes the point that his long-term partner is just a waiter in his restaurant.
It’s just that,
You have to wonder about the discussions that take place between these long-term gay couples who don’t marry especially when one party does in fact make significantly more money .
Scribe38
Me and my husband are both working class. Blk and white. I’m a nurse and he’s in building maintenance. We aren’t anywhere near rich. Marriage was important to me, so we could be on each other’s benifit packages at work and protect property (cars, small house) if the other died. We paid less than 100 bucks downtown to get married in front of my parents. Even if we didn’t have the little that we do have, I still would have married my guy. For those who were denied so long of the right, it means a lot. I’ve been married less than a year, to a man I’ve loved for 20, but putting that ring on his hand changed things. I don’t have the words, education, or sophistication to express how it changed things, but it did for the better.
Scribe38
@MarionPaige: I don’t see that as adverse… there are plenty of straight folks that live together and don’t get married. If a person is well off and the partner wants to protect assets there are always prenuptial agreements. No one is forcing gay guys to get married. 🙂
Dave Downunder
I doubt that marriage equality will affect the way gay people form relationships and I doubt it will impact on income equality either. I think income equality is already a factor in long term relationships sometimes consciously and sometimes subconsciously. You may hook up with a guy you like and think is hot but how long that relationship lasts will ultimately come down to compatibility and issues like ambition and income can be determining factors. I don’t think it is any more or less of a factor for gays as it is for straights either especially in a society where the traditional roles of bread winner and homemaker are disappearing.
I don’t see marriage as necessary for anyone gay or straight but I do think that it was a necessary achievement in the fight for gay equality. It’s great that we have it but only do it if it means something to you or if you stand to get better benefits for your family through it.
As for the religious groups who are still fighting to take it away from us I think they need to get a grip. Marriage and religion are two separate issues and the churches don’t own the monopoly on marriage. You don’t need to be religious in order to get married and many people get married with no religious component to their ceremony what so ever. Straight couples have been having more non religious ceremonies than ever in recent years. How is it that this argument never seems to come up in the media when religious groups speak out against gay marriage?
@Scribe38: I think you expressed yourself beautifully. Happy for you guys.
CivicMinded
Please stop conflating religious marriage and civil marriage. In many European countries couples get married twice: once in town hall and once in a religious ceremony. In the USA we need to take away the authority that religious leaders have to perform civil marriage if we truly have separation of church and state.
Regarding prenups: I would never marry someone who wanted one. If you can’t be committed then don’t get married. If you’re afraid you will lose everything you worked so hard for there’s something wrong in your relationship or the way you think. Don’t get married. If you don’t like the marriage laws so much that you need to substitute your own, don’t get married. My sister-in-law signed a prenup, her husband had an affair, when she wanted a divorce he threw her out of the house and she lived in her car for a month because she had nothing. She was stupid, in many ways, but signing a prenup was the biggest. Marriage is a melding, not a time for saying, “you do your thing and I’ll do mine.”
People need to think of marriage as tantamount to running a business. Before starting a business you need to have a plan. You need to know what you want to accomplish. You need to talk about finances, kids, where to live, and what you’ll do in certain circumstances. If there’s a big income discrepancy you need to talk about how each person’s contribution is equal proportionally rather than in actual dollars. Each person’s contribution needs to be respected.
onthemark
@CivicMinded: You contradict yourself: Yes there is or was a tendency in U.S. to conflate the two – (and thank you Napoleon for abolishing religious requirements for marriage in mainland Europe!) – but MOST Americans are aware that you CAN get married in a civil ceremony… or by an Elvis in Vegas, or whatever. There is plenty of that stuff in popular culture such as sitcoms and trashy movies.
Regarding prenups: well, there is nothing magical about marriage and nobody appointed you to be the Marriage Czar. (Especially since you claim to be against the religious aspect, why do you even want to interfere with other people’s business?) Most young people nowadays had divorced parents so they know there are always potential problems. Since the author is concerned about income inequality, why shouldn’t the partner with money protect himself? Nobody is a mind-reader or can predict the future.
Chris
Social justice warriors already police who people date in terms of race, ethnicity, language, ability, gender fluidity, and the like. So now, we’re going to start policing who people marry and throw in social class into the mix. Really?
captainburrito
Well of course straight couples marry spouses of similar earning power more now… quite simply because women in the past were not afforded the same opportunities in education and the workplace.
gayhope1990
Of course most of the gay people want a proper partner to get married,if marriage is an option obviously.
mujerado
Finances are not the only benefit enjoyed by married couples, as many of us argued during the long fight to secure marriage rights. The legal rights, such as inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., are just as valid now as ever. There are many reasons for couples to marry. If they don’t, and therefore lose those legal benefits, it’s their choice, is it not?