See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5815775

The Influence of Same-Sex Marriage on the Understanding of Same-Sex

Relationships

Article in Journal of Homosexuality · February 2007

DOI: 10.1300/J082v53n03_08 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
43 7,303

1 author:

P. J. Lannutti
La Salle University
35 PUBLICATIONS 506 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by P. J. Lannutti on 01 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Influence of Same-Sex Marriage
on the Understanding
of Same-Sex Relationships
Pamela J. Lannutti, PhD
Boston College

ABSTRACT. This study examines the ways in which legally recognized

same-sex marriage affects the understanding of same-sex romantic rela-
tionships for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) individu-
als. Participants (N = 288) responded to an open-ended Web-based survey
asking them to describe how legally recognized same-sex marriage influ-
enced their view of their own romantic relationship or romantic relation-
ships in general. Results indicate that legally recognized same-sex marriage
impacted participants’ understanding of romantic relationships by making
existing relationships seem more real and by serving as a tool through
which participants realized their desires for ideal potential partner and
relationship characteristics. The results suggest that legally recognized
same-sex marriage is seen as both beneficial and challenging for same-
sex couples. doi:10.1300/J082v53n03_08 [Article copies available for a fee
from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail ad-
dress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.
com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, relation-

ship beliefs, mate selection

Pamela J. Lannutti is Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, Boston

College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Correspondence may be addressed: Department of Com-
munication, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
(E-mail: [email protected]).
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 53(3) 2007
Available online at http://jh.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J082v53n03_08 135
136 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

INTRODUCTION

Being able to get married, I mean really married, is a completely

new possibility for us. It’s exciting and liberating, but very strange
at the same time. (Participant in this study)

During the past decade, various forms of legal recognition of same-

sex partnerships have developed in some parts of the United States (see
Purcell, 1998 and Human Rights Campaign, n.d., for overviews) and in
select countries (see Gay-Civil-Unions, n.d. and Goransson, 1998 for
overview). These civil partnerships are the result of decades-long battle
for equal civil rights fought by segments of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered (LGBT) community. Despite the availability of marriage-
like unions in selected locations, the benefits available to same-sex cou-
ples in the United States were unequal to those granted to opposite-sex
couples. But, in May 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to rec-
ognize same-sex marriages and grant same-sex couples the same legal
benefits as heterosexual couples within the state. While the LGBT com-
munity continues to work to gain acceptance and legal recognition of
same-sex marriage across the United States and world, thousands of
same-sex couples have taken advantage of their new legal access to
marriage benefits in Massachusetts. As such, legal recognition of same-
sex marriage in Massachusetts is a benchmark in the same-sex marriage
battle.
Although legally recognized marriage clearly constitutes a change
for same-sex relationships in the eyes of the law, it is less clear if and how
same-sex marriage may change the meaning of romantic relationships
in the eyes of LGBT community members. This study focuses on the
implications of legally recognized same-sex marriage at the relation-
ship level by examining the impact of legally recognized same-sex mar-
riage on LGBT people’s understanding of romantic relationships.
Considering Same-Sex Partnerships and Marriage
A unique aspect of same-sex partnerships is that they are enacted in a
stigmatized and noninstitutionalized context (DiPlacido, 1998). Previ-
ous research examining same-sex relationships suggests that committed
same-sex relationships share many qualities and characteristics with their
heterosexual counterparts. For example, research has shown that same-
sex and heterosexual couples experience attractions and constraints to
commitment (Kurdek, 2000) and jealousy (Bevan & Lannutti, 2002) in
 Pamela J. Lannutti 137

similar ways. Same-sex and heterosexual couples also participate in

similar relational maintenance strategies (Haas & Stafford, 1998).
Yet, the research on same-sex relationships also highlights the unique-
ness of same-sex partnerships owing to the denial of civic and societal
recognition of their relationships. In their review of the literature on
same-sex couple stability and commitment, Patterson, Ciabattari, and
Schwartz (1999) suggest that the lack of normative institutional status
for same-sex couples leads to unique methods for creating and enacting
commitment. For example, members of same-sex couples may be more
likely to receive support and acceptance from a “chosen” family made
up of friends rather than their families-of-origin, and may only be fully
recognized as a couple within that smaller group (Kurdek & Schmitt,
1987; Weston, 1991). Thus, the performance of relational commitment
may be active only among a limited social network. For some same-sex
couples, performing commitment leads to isolation from members of
the LGBT community in order to protect the exclusivity of the relation-
ship (Stearns & Sabini, 1997). Other same-sex couples have elected to
have commitment without the constraint of exclusivity (LaSala, 2001;
Worth, Reid, & McMillan, 2002).
With the legal recognition of same-sex marriage comes the need to
reconsider the relationship between lack of normative institutional sta-
tus and same-sex relational commitment. Although legally recognized
same-sex marriage does not guarantee full societal acceptance of same-
sex partnerships, it is a significant step toward more normative status
for same-sex couples and provides civil institutionalization of relation-
ships. Thus, in order to continue to understand same-sex relationships,
it is important to examine how this step toward normative institution-
alization influences the ways in which LGBT people make sense of com-
mitment and romantic relationships. The goal of this study is to examine
the ways in which LGBT community members envision the impact of
legally recognized same-sex marriage on their view of their own roman-
tic relationship or romantic relationships in general.

METHODS

Participants
Of the 288 participants, 169 were female, 113 were male, and 6 iden-
tified as neither male nor female. Participant ages ranged from 19 to
66 years old (M = 31.6, Mdn = 30, SD = 9.6) Most participants were
138 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Caucasian (N = 262), 15 participants were African American, 3 were

Asian, and 8 did not identify a racial or ethnic heritage. Participants
identified themselves as gay or lesbian (N = 235), bisexual (N = 44), and
as both queer and transgendered (N = 9). Participants held these identifi-
cations for an average of 11 years (Mdn = 10, SD = 7.89). Most partici-
pants described themselves as “totally” (N = 161) or “mostly” (N = 114)
out about their sexual orientation, while the rest (N = 13) indicated that
they were out to only a few people. Most participants were currently
involved in a primary romantic relationship (67%, N = 193), and the
length of those relationships ranged from 1 to 36 years (M = 5.5, Mdn =
4, SD = 4.98).

Procedure

Data collection took place over 6 weeks. Collection started 2 months

after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in favor of same-
sex marriage (Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 2003) was announced
and ended 6 weeks before marriage licenses were issued to same-sex
couples in Massachusetts. Participants were recruited through a snow-
ball sampling method. First, the author made announcements inviting
participants on several Massachusetts LGBT listserves and through the
membership lists of several Boston LGBT recreational and social organi-
zations. After completing a Web-based survey, participants were asked to
pass the URL along to other LGBT community members who might be
interested in participating. This method generated 166 participants who
resided in Massachusetts, and 122 who resided in one of the other United
States. At the time of data collection, it was expected that residents of
other states would be able to obtain legally recognized same-sex mar-
riages in Massachusetts; therefore, the information from non-Massachu-
setts participants was retained for analysis.
The recruitment announcement informed potential participants that
the study was being conducted to better understand what members of
the LGBT community thought about the legal recognition of same-sex
marriages and that participation would require them to complete an anon-
ymous Web-based survey. Interested participants were provided with a
URL for the Web-based survey. The welcome page for the survey reit-
erated the goal of the project, that participation was anonymous, and
gave instructions. The survey required participants to respond to several
open-ended questions, followed by demographic items and closed-ended
items. This study examines the ways in which participants related their
 Pamela J. Lannutti 139

understanding of legally recognized same-sex marriage to their under-

standing of romantic relationships and focuses on participants’ responses
to the following open-ended item: “How might legally recognizing same-
sex marriage change your own romantic relationship(s) or the way you
think about romantic relationships?” After completing the survey, the
participants viewed an end screen that thanked them for their participa-
tion and asked them to please pass the study URL on to other members
of the LGBT community who may be interested in participating.
Analysis
Participants’ responses were analyzed using an inductive method in-
formed by grounded theory. An inductive method was chosen to let the
participant’s voices guide the analysis. When using this approach, cate-
gories and themes emerge from the participants’ responses rather than a
priori conceptual categories (Boyatzis, 1998). Following coding proce-
dures suggested by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003), responses to each
item were examined and subthemes of responses were noted. A con-
stant comparative process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was employed to
compare emerging subthemes until saturation was reached. At that point,
no new subthemes were identified and all responses fit within a sub-
theme. Conceptual linkages among the subthemes were noted throughout
the analysis and informed the creation of themes and categories.
In addition to the constant comparative process, other steps were taken
to ensure the validity and credibility of the data analysis (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). To further ensure the validity
of the coding procedure, a colleague with expertise in qualitative meth-
ods reviewed the data and agreed with the coding results. To check the
credibility of the coding, five members of the LGBT community were
asked to review the analysis, and they confirmed that the descriptions fit
with their lived experiences. Finally, the author examined the themes
and constructed a theoretical narrative to best explain the results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All participants responded to the question of how legally recog-

nized same-sex marriages might change their romantic relationship or
the way they think about romantic relationships. A small portion of
the sample (6%) indicated that they did not see the legal recognition
of same-sex marriage as having any impact on their understanding of
romantic relationships. The most common reason given for this lack of
140 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

impact was that the law or government did not seem to be important
when considering same-sex relationships. The majority of the sample
expressed the ways in which they understood the legal recognition of
same-sex marriage to influence their experience of romantic relation-
ships. These responses can be organized around two categories: making
relationships more real and revealing desires. Themes and subthemes
within each category are discussed later. The results presentation relies
upon directly quoted excerpts from the participants’ responses to give
priority to their voices. The examples chosen are representative of the
responses of many.
Making It Real:
Same-Sex Marriage and Existing Relationships
The legal recognition of same-sex marriage presents LGBT couples
with the unique experience of having a new option for the performance
of romantic relationships introduced after they have presumably estab-
lished a system of relational expression and maintenance (Haas &
Stafford, 1998; Slater, 1995). The possible influence of same-sex mar-
riage on the understanding of existing relationships is even more inter-
esting when you recognize that same-sex couples may have developed
their system of relating, in part, in reaction to the lack of institutional
recognition for their relationship. Analysis of participants’ responses
revealed a category of responses centered around the way in which same-
sex marriage made existing relationships seem more real. Two themes
emerged in this category. The first theme, becoming real to others, ex-
pressed participants’ belief that their relationships could now be “seen”
by others and comprised two subthemes dealing with recognition from
civil authorities and specific heterosexual others. The second theme, be-
coming real to themselves, expressed participants’ awareness that the
possibility of same-sex marriage made them reconsider their view of
their existing relationships and see them as more substantial.
Becoming real to others. Many participants saw same-sex marriage
as changing the way they thought about existing romantic relationships
not because of dynamics within the relationship, but because mar-
riage had the potential to shift the way that outsiders saw the relation-
ship. For example, “I guess same-sex marriage does change the way
I see our relationship, and other lesbian and gay relationships, too.
I mean, I feel the same way about my partner–I love her no matter
what–but I feel like our relationship will be just different, better, be-
cause other people will have to see our relationships as real now.” Two
 Pamela J. Lannutti 141

subthemes emerged based on whether the “others” are the civil authori-
ties or specific heterosexual others.
Civil benefits for real relationships. Participants recognized that the
civil benefits of legally recognized same-sex marriage may alter the
place of same-sex relationships in society. For the most part, partici-
pants expressed this in terms of making relationships more real, serious,
or secure. For example, “I feel strange saying this, but being able to get
a real marriage license from the state and share benefits like health in-
surance, property ownership, and even sharing taxes makes gay re-
lationships seem like they really count all of a sudden. I mean, yeah,
of course they counted before, but now with all the legal stuff, they
just seem to count more somehow.” Another stated, “Having the legal
protections of marriage makes me think of my 5 year relationship in a
different way because the government will finally have to acknowledge
it. It just seems more serious, like a new level. I want us to get married
and then we can be more secure than we ever could without it.” Finally,
another participant related her altered view of her relationship and civil
recognition of same-sex marriage in patriotic terms:
Same-sex marriage not only makes me take my relationship more
seriously, it’s making me take my country more seriously. I al-
ways felt oppressed and not a part of America, not really. But this
seems like finally there is a light in the dark, like finally it’s going
to be ok to be a dyke and the government is saying that my rela-
tionship counts and I count, too. Now I just feel like I’d better not
mess my relationship up since it’s so important finally.
Credit in the straight world: Specific heterosexual others. The sec-
ond subtheme to emerge from participants’ reflections on how their un-
derstanding of existing relationships has shifted focuses on specific
heterosexuals in the participants’ lives. For the most part, participants’
felt a change in their view of same-sex relationships because they antici-
pated more recognition and acceptance from straight people. Among
the most commonly mentioned heterosexual others were family mem-
bers. For example,
I think that this same-sex marriage thing has just made me see my
relationship as more important now and that has made me more
bold because my expectations for us being acknowledged by my
family has changed. Honestly, they have started to change already,
being more open to talk about us and even inviting my partner
142 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

places by name. Civil benefits are great and important, but for me,
family benefits are what’s really changing.
Employers were also commonly mentioned as key heterosexual
others. “It is so great now that we will be able to get married. I feel like
our relationship is real, important, matters more now. One thing that
really made me feel this way is when my boss came to give me informa-
tion about employee spousal benefits–it was right after the court decision
was announced–and said that she looked forward to getting them for me.
I wanted to cry.” Other participants expressed a change in their view of
existing relationships because marriage provides a definition of their rela-
tionship that is easier for straight people to understand. For example, “I
am so excited about getting married–we have been together for 11 years
and want to get married right away–because I will feel like I will have a
real solid relationship when I can prove it to people. People like doctors
and neighbors and all kinds of straight people. I won’t have to explain it
anymore, I will say this is my husband. Sounds great, right? Husband.”
Becoming real to themselves. The second theme in participants’ re-
sponses about the impact of legally recognized same-sex marriage on
existing relationships shows the ways in which same-sex marriage
shifts the meaning of relationships for the members of the couples
themselves. LGBT men and women explained that the option to legally
marry makes their existing relationships seem more concrete, solid,
and real to them. For example, “I’ve considered myself to be in a com-
mitted relationship for a long time. But, there is something to the word
marriage that makes it feel more real and serious even to me. That
word, marriage, makes it mean something different because it makes it a
more concrete thing to be in this relationship.” Another stated, “Getting
married and having it be legal binds us together in a more tangible way.
It makes our love seem more real, even to us.”
Others spoke of how legal recognition changed their view of commit-
ment ceremonies. Although Stiers (1999) describes the ways in which
same-sex couples work to engender meaning in their commitment or re-
lationship celebrating rituals without the benefit of legal recognition,
participants in this study reflect the disappointment with commitment
ceremonies among some members of the LGBT community:
Legal recognition makes having a ceremony seem like a real option
that actually means something now, not just some sort of parody or
pretend wedding. I guess that’s harsh, but we talked about having a
ceremony before (we’ve been together 8 years) and I never wanted
to do it because it seemed sad to me that we could have an empty
 Pamela J. Lannutti 143

ritual that just made it seem like we were pretending it counted the
same as straight weddings. But, I want to do it now because it does
count and the whole thing has made me think that you can’t really
be totally committed without it.
Another participant stated, “I don’t know, but it seems like now that
we can get married legally I finally feel that I can have the kind of rela-
tionship my parents did–they were together for over 40 years cause they
never gave up. I know that you shouldn’t have to get married to have a
good relationship, but now we can start out with a real wedding, not just
some made-up ritual, and it seems like that will make it easier for us
work on staying committed.”
Other participants felt a change in their understanding of an existing
relationship as a result of the impending legal acceptance of same-sex
marriage, but unlike the examples above, this change was toward in-
creased instability and uncertainty. For example, “I’m happy that we
are gaining legal rights, but I’ve also been nervous when I think about
same-sex marriage and what it means for me. My partner and I have
been together for 3 years, but I’m not really sure what having the option
to get married will mean for us. Would doing it really be a good thing?
I guess now that marriage is a real option, I’m not so sure how real my
relationship is.” Another stated, “Ever since we heard that same-sex
marriage was going to be legal, my boyfriend and I have been fighting
about this. I don’t want to get married and he does. I think I am begin-
ning to realize that I just don’t want to make that kind of promise to him.
This wasn’t an issue before ’cause it couldn’t really happen, but now
it’s a big problem.” One participant’s statement exemplified the tension
many were feeling about the inevitability of same-sex marriage influ-
encing same-sex relationships, “People say that getting married doesn’t
change your relationship. But, I don’t think that’s true or why would ev-
eryone make such a big deal about getting married. I’m not sure I want
my relationship to change, but just having the option to marry, whether
we use it or not, is changing us already.”
Thus, participants explained that the impact of same-sex marriage
on same-sex relationships is seen as extending beyond the legal bene-
fits of civil recognition and affects the vision of same-sex relationships
both from within and outside of same-sex couples. Participants under-
stood same-sex marriage as making same-sex relationships more real
to others and to the partners themselves. The ability for same-sex mar-
riage to make same-sex relationships seem more tangible was seen as a
benefit by some, but a burden by others.
144 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Revealing Desires:
Same-Sex Marriage, Potential Partners, and Romance
In addition to making same-sex partnerships seem more real, legally
recognized same-sex marriage also revealed previously unknown, and
often surprising, desires among the participants. Two themes emerged
in this second category of responses. First, participants who were not cur-
rently involved in a romantic relationship, or involved in a nonserious
relationship, understood legally recognized same-sex marriage as af-
fecting their perceptions of future relationships by revealing desired
characteristics for potential partners. Second, both partnered and un-
partnered participants expressed the way in which the legal recognition
of same-sex marriage revealed their own desires for or resistance to a
romantic ideal for relationships.
Marriage material? Same-sex marriage and future partners. The le-
gal recognition of same-sex marriage plunges LGBT adults into the un-
usual position of having to consider a previously unavailable relational
option during their adult lives. Many participants found themselves
reconsidering what characteristics they seek in a potential relational
partner since legally recognized marriage became available to same-sex
couples. This reconsideration took many participants by surprise, as
expressed in the following example: “I didn’t think that the court’s
decision about same-sex marriage would affect me too much because
I’m single, but I have to admit that it has. I’ve found myself meeting
new people and actually wondering, ‘Would he be marriage material?’
I guess I didn’t think about the long term potential of relationships as
much before.” Others registered a new level of caution about the char-
acteristics of potential partners as a result of legally recognized same-
sex marriage, “Now that we can get married, I am trying to be more cau-
tious about who I get involved with. I guess I have higher standards
now. I worry I will get involved with someone who wouldn’t make a
good spouse down that line, and I want to avoid that if possible. It’s
strange, but I feel like I value the possibility of a commitment more now
and am much more careful.” Same-sex marriage impacted some partici-
pants’ perception of future relationships by functioning as a new type of
test for potential partners:

I think same-sex marriage is great because it can be used as a won-

derful tool to weed out the potential partners from the players. I’ve
been on a few first dates since the court decision, and I can tell I’m
checking people out in a different way now that I can bring up the
 Pamela J. Lannutti 145

marriage topic and see their reaction to it. I know I want someone
who wants to build a relationship, and if they are happy about legal
marriage, that’s a point in their favor. If they squirm around when
it comes up, I know they won’t work right away.

Although the previous examples were from people who were inter-
ested in marrying some day, participants who were not interested in ever
marrying also saw same-sex marriage as changing their view on perspec-
tive partners. For example,

I don’t want to get married so this marriage thing is going to make

it harder for me to find a person to be in a relationship with. I know
that because I don’t want to get married, women will think I’m not
a good potential partner, and move on. I now have to be more care-
ful to put my feelings about marriage out there early in meeting
someone so I don’t get hurt later. It sucks, because before I felt like
there were more potential people for me, and now I have to limit
myself to the other non-marrying kinds out there–like finding a
great girl wasn’t hard enough already!

Thus, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage influences not

only those already involved in romantic relationships, but also those
members of the LGBT community who are seeking potential partners
by changing people’s perspective on characteristics they desire in a po-
tential partner and functioning as a tool to derive whether or not a poten-
tial partner has desirable characteristics.
Revealing and resisting romance. In addition to realizing their desires
for partner characteristics, participants expressed the ways in which legal
recognition unearthed their desire for idealized relational characteristics.
Two subthemes regarding desired relationship characteristics emerged.
First, participants indicated that legally recognized same-sex marriage
lead them to realize their desire for idealized, “traditional,” romance
in their relationships. The second subtheme describes an opposite reac-
tion in which participants realized their resistance to the romantic ideal
of relationships.
Desiring romance. Many participants admitted that same-sex marriage
made them realize that there were aspects of relationships associated with
“fairytale” heterosexual weddings and marriages that they desired for
their own relationships. For example, “Since marriage became legal,
I’ve realized I’ve been suppressing my desire for certain things in my
relationship for a long time. I always thought that because I was gay,
146 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

I would never have the big fancy wedding and the honeymoon and anni-
versary parties and the professional wedding photos framed everywhere
in the house, but I now see I can have all of that, and damn it, I want it!”
Another participant focused on the idealized romance of a wedding it-
self, “When I was growing up I was just like any little girl, I guess. I fan-
tasized about my wedding day–the gown, flowers, limo, all that. But,
when I realized I was a lesbian, I let all of that go. But, now that we can
get married, I realize that I don’t have to miss out on a romantic dream
wedding.”
The participants reflected the debate over finding the right language
for same-sex relationships (Stiers, 1999) by pointed out that the word
“marriage” was in itself more romantic than the terms for committed
relationships used currently to refer to same-sex couples. For example,
“The legal decision is great because it puts the romance in the way
we can now describe relationships. I mean, we can talk about ‘getting
married,’ ‘having a wedding,’ and those words will be legally accurate.
I even think the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are romantic. I mean, isn’t
it so much more romantic that saying we are having a ‘commitment cere-
mony’ and have a ‘partner?’”
Interestingly, some participants talked of same-sex marriage reveal-
ing their desire for romance, but also revealing some problems with
how such romance should be carried out in same-sex relationships. Con-
sider the issue of applying an idealized romantic engagement script to a
same-sex relationship as described by one participant:

Having marriage be legal has made my girlfriend and I really seri-

ously consider getting married. We’ve been together a while, so it
would be practical and romantic. But, we now have a problem:
getting engaged. Both of us want to be surprised by a romantic
proposal and get a diamond ring, and of course neither of us wants
to be the one asked after the other. We both want to be the “girl” in
the traditional engagement story. Obviously, we can’t pull that
fairytale engagement off, but we are having a hard time coming up
with an equally romantic alternative.

Another participant expressed frustration with adapting the romantic

aspects of a traditional wedding to a same-sex ceremony, “There are
many aspects of a Jewish wedding that my boyfriend and I think are re-
ally romantic and want to have in ours, but the problem is they are so
gendered. Stuff like breaking the glass and the bride circling the husband
7 times. We want to do this stuff, but are having a hard time figuring out
 Pamela J. Lannutti 147

how to adapt them to two men and keeping the traditional part that
makes them so romantic to both of us.”
Resisting romance. In contrast to the participants who expressed the
ways that legally recognized same-sex marriage revealed their desire
for idealized romantic aspects of relationships, participants also ex-
plained how the legal recognition of same-sex marriage has revealed
their resistance to “romance.” For example, “I think it’s great that we
have a legal right to protect our partnerships, but I’m really disappointed
that now gay people will expect to act like straight people when it comes
to expressing commitment. Whenever I think of having a big wedding
day I get really anxious. I didn’t think I was so against the fairytale im-
ages of weddings and marriage, but I guess I am, especially for gay peo-
ple. Shouldn’t we be beyond it?” Others resisted the complications that
come from enacting the traditional romantic wedding script, “One of
the great things about being a lesbian was that I would never have to be a
bride in the traditional sense. Do you know how much work it is to plan
a big wedding and reception? It takes away from focusing on the actual
commitment you are making. I know we could just have a ‘small wed-
ding,’ but then it wouldn’t fit that romantic image of weddings and
wouldn’t be satisfying. I’d rather avoid it all together, but probably
can’t now that same-sex marriage is legal.” The final way in which par-
ticipants described legal same-sex marriage as revealing resistance to
a romantic ideal was through rejecting an externally imposed traditional
relational timeline. For example, “I think the reality of same-sex mar-
riage is just hitting me. I guess that now LGBT people will fall into the
‘first comes love, then comes marriage . . .’ trap that our society puts out
there. Now we will have to fit into that neat linear view of love and I just
don’t see love as that uncomplicated.”
In revealing participants’ desires for or resistance to a romantic ideal
in relationships, legally recognized same-sex marriage is influencing
participants’ implicit theories of relationships, or their belief system
about relationships. This is significant because implicit theories of rela-
tionships have been shown to influence people’s system for understand-
ing their relationships and affect their relational satisfaction, stability,
and feelings toward partners (Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, &
Patrick, 2001; Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003; Sprecher & Metts,
1999). Thus, in describing how same-sex marriage was affecting the
relational perceptions, expectations, and desires of participants the re-
sults suggest that whether a same-sex couple marries or not, same-sex
marriage may have an influence on their relational outcomes.
148 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

CONCLUSION

This study offers a previously unavailable perspective on same-sex

marriage. The majority of previous research on same-sex marriage fo-
cuses on the legal, rhetorical, and political aspects of the battle for and
against same-sex marriage both within the LGBT community and be-
tween the LGBT community and mainstream society (Clarke & Finlay,
2004; Earl, 2003; Fassin, 2001; Halvorsen, 1998; Tully, 1994; Yep,
Lovaas, & Elia, 2003). Other research has addressed same-sex marriage
by examining the symbolic and religious meanings within the perfor-
mance of gay and lesbian relationship rituals, such as holy unions
and commitment ceremonies (Halderman, 1998; McQueeney, 2003).
Two notable studies have offered more in-depth information about same-
sex marriage and the couples who engage in similar commitments.
Solomon, Rothblum, and Balsam (2004) compared aspects of same-sex
couples who had civil unions in Vermont to their married heterosexual
siblings and LGBT couples in their social network who did not have a
civil union. They found that while gay and lesbian couples who had a
union were less traditional than their heterosexual counterparts, there
were few differences between same-sex couples who had a civil union
and those who did not. A more descriptive look at same-sex couples who
decided to engage in a commitment ritual is offered in Stier’s (1999)
study examining the meaning of commitment in same-sex couples and
their decisions regarding commitment rituals.
Yet, this study differs from previous research in that it was con-
ducted after the announcement that Massachusetts would become the
first state in the United States to offer same-sex couples the same mar-
riage benefits as heterosexual couples. Therefore, the study reflects par-
ticipants’ understanding of legally recognized same-sex marriage not as
a hypothetical possibility, but as an impending reality. Second, this
study considered the impact of same-sex marriage on the meaning of ro-
mantic relationships for those who are currently unpartnered as well as
those involved in a relationship, therefore providing a fuller perspective
on the implications of same-sex marriage for the LGBT community. It
should be noted that this study is limited in two ways. First, the sample is
limited by the lack of racial diversity and low number of transgendered
participants. Second, the data collection method required that partici-
pants have Internet access, which may have lead to a bias in the sample
such that the perspectives of those without computer skills and those in
lower income brackets may not have been adequately represented. Fu-
ture research should continue to consider the ways in which same-sex
 Pamela J. Lannutti 149

marriage is influencing the understanding of same-sex relationships

within the wider LGBT community by improving on the limitations of
this study.
Legally recognized same-sex marriage influenced participants’ un-
derstanding of relationships and themselves. With same-sex marriage,
comes a way to make relationships seem more real and revelations about
one’s own desires for relationships and relational partners. The results
suggest both benefits and challenges for same-sex couples emerging
from legally recognized marriage. It is important to note that at the time
this article was written, same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and across
the nation continued to be a controversial issue (see Human Rights
Campaign, n.d.). Thus, while the future of same-sex marriage in the
United States and in other countries may still be unknown, it is clear that
same-sex marriage is influencing the meaning of relationships for LGBT
individuals and that the interplay between same-sex marriage and the
understanding of same-sex relationships will continue to evolve through-
out the battle for and against same-sex marriage.

REFERENCES
Auer-bach, C. F. & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to cod-
ing and analysis. New York: NYU Press.
Bevan, J. L. & Lannutti, P. J. (2002). The experience and expression of romantic jeal-
ousy in same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships. Communication Re-
search Reports, 19, 258-268.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and
code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, V. & Finlay, S. (2004). “For better or worse?” Lesbian and gay marriage. Femi-
nism & Psychology, 14, 17-23.
DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: A conse-
quent of heterosexism, homophobia, and stigmatization. In G. M. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men,
and bisexuals. (pp. 138-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Earl, J. (2003). The gay 90s? Models of legal decision-making, change and history.
Journal of Historical Sociology, 16, 111-134.
Fassin, E. (2001). Same sex, different politics: “Gay marriage” debates in France and
the United States. Public Culture, 13, 215-232.
Gay-Civil-Unions.com. (n.d.). World watch: International status of same-sex un-
ions. Retrieved April 22, 2005 from http://www.gay-civil-unions.com/HTML/
International.htm.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. SJC-08860, November 18, 2003.
Goransson, L. (1998). International trends in same-sex marriage. In R. J. Cabaj &
D. W. Purcell (Eds.), On the road to same-sex marriage: A supportive guide to
150 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

psychological, political and legal issues. (pp. 141-164). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Inc.
Haas, S. M. & Stafford, L. (1998). An initial examination of maintenance behaviors in
gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15,
846-855.
Halderman, D. C. (1998). Ceremonies and religion in same-sex marriage. In R. J.
Cabaj & D. W. Purcell (Eds.), On the road to same-sex marriage: A supportive guide
to psychological, political and legal issues. (pp. 165-190). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Inc.
Halvorsen, R. (1998). The ambiguity of lesbian and gay marriages: Change and conti-
nuity in the symbolic order. Journal of Homosexuality, 35, 207-231.
Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Marriage. Retrieved April 22, 2005 from http://
www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/Tagged Page
Display.cfm&TPLID=63&ContentID=15110.
Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Im-
plicit theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808-819.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Ori-
entations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Re-
view, 7, 41-55.
Kurdek, L. A. (2000). Attractions and constraints as determinants of relationship com-
mitment: Longitudinal evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Per-
sonal Relationships, 7, 245-262.
Kurdek, L. A. & Schmitt, J. P. (1987). Perceived emotional support from family and
friends in members of homosexual, married, and heterosexual cohabitating couples.
Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 57-68.
LaSala, M. C. (2001). Monogamous or not: Understanding and counseling gay male
couples. Families in Society, 82, 605-611.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McQueeney, K. B. (2003). The new religious rite: A symbolic interactionist case study
of lesbian commitment rituals. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 49-70.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patterson, D. G., Ciabattari, T., & Schwartz, P. (1999). The constraints of innovation:
Commitment and stability among same-sex couples. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability: Perspec-
tives on individual differences. (pp. 339-359). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Purcell, D. W. (1997). Current trends in same-sex marriage. In R. J. Cabaj &
D. W. Purcell (Eds.), On the road to same-sex marriage: A supportive guide to psy-
chological, political and legal issues. (pp. 29-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Slater, S. (1995). The lesbian family life cycle. New York: The Free Press.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnership: Les-
bian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions
and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 275-286.
 Pamela J. Lannutti 151

Sprecher, S. & Metts, S. (1999). Romantic beliefs: Their influence on relationships and
patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16,
834-851.
Stearns, D. C. & Sabini, J. (1997). Dyadic adjustment and community involvement in
same-sex couples. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 2, 265-283.
Stiers, G. (1999). From this day forward: Commitment, marriage, and family in les-
bian and gay relationships. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Tully, C. T. (1994). To boldly go where no one has gone before: The legalization of les-
bian and gay marriages. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1, 73-87.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Worth, H., Reid, A., & McMillan, K. (2002). Somewhere over the rainbow: Love,
trust, and monogamy in gay relationships. Journal of Sociology, 38, 237-253.
Yep, G. A., Lovaas, K. E., & Elia, J. P. (2003). A critical appraisal of assimilationist
and radical ideologies underlying same-sex marriage in LGBT communities in the
United States. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 45-64.

doi:10.1300/J082v53n03_08

View publication stats