quote:

BOSTON — Four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay couples to marry, there have been blissful unions, painful divorces and everything in between. 
 
Same-Sex Marriages in Massachusetts

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Heather and Adrienne Walker with their four children in Natick, Mass., say others have more respect for the seriousness of their relationship since they married.

Some same-sex couples say being married has made a big difference, and some say it has made no difference at all. There are devoted couples who have decided marriage is not for them, couples whose lawyers or accountants advised them against marrying, and couples in which one partner wants to marry but the other does not.

But as same-sex marriage begins in California, Massachusetts’s experience may offer hints of what is to come. For example, after an initial euphoric rush to the altar, the number of gay weddings here fell sharply and has declined each year since. Of the more than 10,500 same-sex couples married here since May 17, 2004, 6,121 wed in the first six months. There were 2,060 weddings in 2005; 1,442 in 2006; and 867 in the first eight months of 2007, the most recent data show.

Gay men and lesbians say the early wave of weddings reflected “pent-up demand” from longstanding couples. The subsequent numbers indicate that “marriage isn’t for everybody,” said Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer who argued the case that led to same-sex marriage being legalized here. And, Ms. Bonauto said, “there’s only so many gay people in Massachusetts.”

The Census Bureau recorded 23,655 same-sex households in Massachusetts in 2006.

Nearly two-thirds of the weddings have been lesbian marriages, including one between two women named Melissa McCarthy. And while nearly half of straight people marrying are under 30, more same-sex married couples of both sexes are older — nearly a third are in their 40s.

Lawyers say same-sex couples are more likely to draw up prenuptial agreements than straight couples are.

For some, the marriage learning curve is steep.

“It’s been a mixed bag,” said Jacob Venter, a 44-year-old child psychiatrist who married Billy Boney, a 36-year-old hairdresser, a month after it became legal to do so. They have disagreements over money, the in-laws and whether to adopt children or have their own.

“Nothing turns out the way you imagine,” Mr. Venter said. “There are no role models for gay marriage.”

Unlike California, Massachusetts has a residency requirement for marriage. Some couples have moved here to marry, including Lisa Forest and Ann Marie Willer, who came from Texas.

“Without having that legal recognition, we felt very vulnerable,” Ms. Forest said. “We wanted the psychological security of knowing that we’re protected if one of us were to become sick, that we would be able to transfer our assets, at least on the state level, without incurring taxes, that we’ll be able to stay together if we’re old and not able to care for ourselves.”

For many, the biggest advantages are less quantifiable.

“I feel totally different inside my skin,” said Linda Bailey-Davies, 62, who married her longtime partner, Gloria Bailey-Davies, 67. With marriage, she said, “I felt legitimate in the world.”

Heather and Adrienne Walker believe people better understand the seriousness of their relationship, recognition that is especially valuable to them as mothers of four children in suburban Natick.

“Before marriage was legal, if I called Adrienne my wife, people would say ‘Your what?’ ” Heather Walker said.

“But if you say partner, they’re thinking business partner. The knowledge that we are legally married, that they can’t play a semantics game, is very freeing. There’s none of that, ‘but we really need to talk to the actual parents.’ ”

Still, some couples find few significant advantages. Many employers offered health insurance to domestic partners. State taxes can be higher for some couples, and the lack of federal recognition of gay marriage makes lucrative benefits — Social Security, federal tax breaks — off limits.

In times of crisis, spouses have hospital visitation rights and can make medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their spouse.

Employers offer spouses sick leave, bereavement leave, access to health insurance and pension

The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists.

Married couples in elderly care facilities are generally not separated unless one spouse's health dictates hospitalization or special care.

The dissolution of a marriage requires a determination of property distribution, award of child custody and support and spousal support. Absent divorce, there is no uniform system for sorting out the ending of a relationship.

• Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed.
  
  The law presumes that a married couple with both names on the title to their home owns the property as "tenants by the entirety."
  
  A married couple, by statute, has creditor protection of their marital home.
  
  Many married people are entitled to financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.
  
  With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.
  
  When a spouse dies, there is no need to prove ownership of every item in the household for taxable purposes.

• A child who grows up with married parents benefits from the fact that his or her parents' relationship is recognized by law and receives legal protections.
  
  Spouses are generally entitled to joint child custody and visitation upon divorce (and bear an obligation to pay child support).
  
  The mark of a strong family and healthy children is having parents who are nurturing, caring, and loving. Parents should be judged on their ability to parent, not by their age, race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
  
  A recent study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, entitled The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children found that:
  
  * Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties.
  
  * Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties.
  
  * Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children.
  
  * Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children).
  
  * Vermont has the largest aggregation of same gender-couples (~1% of all households) followed by California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon.
  
  According to a new study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics:
  
  Census 2000 and related demographic research make it clear that parenting by same-gender couples is an established and growing part of the diverse structure of families in the United States. Public policies that aim to promote family stability and security typically are established without consideration for same-gender parents and their children, and they place these families at a disadvantage, as they do heterosexual unmarried parents, single parents, and extended-family caregivers.
  
  Public policy designed to promote the family as the basic building block of society has at its core the protection of children's health and well-being. Children's well being relies in large part on a complex blend of their own legal rights and the rights derived, under law, from their parents. Children of same-gender parents often experience economic, legal, and familial insecurity as a result of the absence of legal recognition of their bonds to their nonbiological parents. Current public-policy trends, with notable exceptions, favor limiting or prohibiting the availability of civil marriage and limiting rights and protections to same-gender couples.
  
  To read more about this study go to: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

• For adults, a stable, happy marriage is the best protector against illness and premature death. Decades of research have clearly established these links. (Burman & Margolin, 1992; Dawson, 1991; Verbrugge, 1979).
  
  Studies on marriages have found that married people live longer, have higher incomes and wealth, engage less in risky behaviors, eat more healthily, and have fewer psychological problems than unmarried people. (Waite, Linda J. "Why Marriage Matters." Strengthening Marriage Roundtable. Washington, DC, June 1997)
  
  Research shows that unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. (Popenoe, David and Dafoe Whitehead, Barbara, USA Today, July, 2000)
  
  A recent study shows that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has a negative impact on their mental health.
  
  I Do, But I can't: The impact of marriage denial on the mental health of sexual citizenship of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States (Herdt, G. & Kertzner, R. 2006).
  
  http://www.nsrc.sfsu.edu