Interracial unions and same-sex unions were rare and secretive in the past because U.S. society was organized to suppress such unions. The rise of same-sex and interracial unions in the past few decades suggests changes in the basic structure of U.S. society. Young adults have been marrying later, and single young adults are much less likely to live with their parents. The independence of young adults has reduced parental control over their children's choice of mate. Using microdata from the U.S. Census, this article shows that interracial couples and same-sex couples are more geographically mobile and more urban than same-race married couples. The authors view the geographic mobility of young couples as a proxy for their independence from communities of origin. The results show that nontraditional couples are more geographically mobile even after individual and community attributes are taken into account. Same-sex couples are more likely to be interracial than heterosexual couples, indicating that same-sex and interracial couples are part of a common fabric of family diversification. The article discusses related historical examples and trends.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgrestiAlan1990. Categorical Data Analysis.New York: John Wiley.
2.
ArnettJeffrey Jensen2004. Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens Through the Early Twenties.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3.
BadgettM. V. Lee1995. “The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review48: 726–39.
4.
BadgettM. V. LeeRogersMarc A.2003. “Left Out of the Count: Missing Same-Sex Couples in Census 2000.” Working Paper, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Amherst, MA.
5.
BeanFrank D.TiendaMarta.1987. The Hispanic Population of the United States.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
BérubéAllan.1990. Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two.New York: Free Press.
7.
BlackDanGatesGarySandersSethTaylorLowell2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources.”Demography37: 139–54.
8.
BlauPeter M.1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure.New York: Free Press.
9.
BrooksClem2000. “Civil Rights Liberalism and the Suppression of a Republican Political Realignment in the United States, 1972 to 1996.”American Sociological Review65: 483–505.
10.
BumpassLarry L.1990. “What's Happening to the Family? Interactions between Demographic and Institutional Change.”Demography27: 483–98.
11.
ChaunceyGeorge1994. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890–1940.New York: Basic Books.
12.
CherlinAndrew J. [1981]1992. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Revised and enlarged ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
CloggClifford C.EliasonScott R.1987. “Some Common Problems in Log-Linear Analysis.”Sociological Methods and Research16: 8–44.
14.
CottNancy F.2000. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
D'EmilioJohn1992. “Capitalism and Gay Identity.” Pp. 3–16 in Making Trouble: Essays on Gay History, Politics and the University.New York: Rutledge.
16.
D'EmilioJohn1998. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States 1940-1970.2d ed.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
D'EmilioJohnFreedmanEstelle1988. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America.New York: Harper and Row.
18.
ElderGlen H.Jr1975. “Age Differentiation in the Life Course.”Annual Review of Sociology1: 165–90.
19.
EskridgeWilliam N.Jr2002. Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights.New York: Routledge.
20.
FischerClaude1975. “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism.”American Journal of Sociology80: 1319–41.
21.
FischerClaude2000. “Ever More Rooted Americans.” Working Paper, “A Century of Difference,” The Survey Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Draft date, November 2000. Cited with permission.
22.
FriedanBetty1974. The Feminine Mystique.Rev. ed.New York: Dell.
23.
GatesGary J.OstJason2004. The Gay and Lesbian Atlas.Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
24.
GlickPaul C.1977. “Updating the Family Life Cycle.”Journal of Marriage and the Family39: 5–13.
25.
GoldscheiderFrances K.GoldscheiderCalvin1993. Leaving Home Before Marriage: Ethnicity, Familism and Generational Relationships.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
26.
GoldscheiderFrances K.1999. The Changing Transition to Adulthood: Leaving and Returning Home.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
GoodeWilliam J. [1963]1970. World Revolution and Family Patterns.2d ed.New York: Free Press.
28.
GordonMilton1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origin.New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
GrossbergMichael1985. Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
30.
HarevenTamara1996. “Introduction: Aging and Generational Relations over the Life Course.” Pp. ix–xxv in Aging and Generational Relations, edited by HarevenTamara. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
31.
HirschArnold R.1983. Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago 1940–1960.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HoganDennis P.1981. Transitions and Social Change: The Early Lives of American Men.New York: Academic Press.
33.
JacobsJerry A.LabovTeresa G.2002. “Gender Differentials in Intermarriage among Sixteen Race and Ethnic Groups.”Sociological Forum17: 621–46.
34.
JepsenLisa K.JepsenChristopher A.2002. “An Empirical Analysis of the Matching Patterns of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples.”Demography39: 435–53.
35.
KalmijnMatthijs1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.”Annual Review of Sociology24: 395–421.
36.
KennedyElizabeth LapovskyDavisMadeline D.1993. Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community.New York: Routledge.
37.
KlawitterMarieka M.FlattVictor1998. “The Effects of State and Local Antidiscrimination Policies on Earnings for Gays and Lesbians.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management17: 658–86.
38.
KoppelmanAndrew2002. The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
LiebersonStanleyWatersMary C.1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
MasseyDouglas S.DentonNancy1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.Harvard University Press.
41.
MichaelRobert T.FuchsVictor R.ScottSharon R.1980. “Changes in the Propensity to Live Alone: 1950–1976.”Demography17: 39–56.
42.
ModellJohnFurstenbergFrank F.JrHershbergTheodore1978. “Social Change and Transitions to Adulthood in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 192–219 in The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective, edited by GordonMichael. New York: St. Martin's.
43.
MoranRachel2001. Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
MyrdalGunnarSternerRichardRoseArnold1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.New York: Harper.
45.
PampelFred C.1983. “Changes in the Propensity to Live Alone: Evidence from Consecutive Cross-Sectional Surveys, 1960–1976.”Demography20: 433–47.
46.
QianZhenchao1997. “Breaking the Racial Barriers: Variations in Interracial Marriage between 1980 and 1990.”Demography34: 263–76.
47.
RomanoRenee C.2003. Race Mixing: Black-White Marriage in Postwar America.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
RootMaria P.2001. Love's Revolution: Interracial Marriage.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
49.
RosenfeldMichael J.2001. “The Salience of Pan-National Hispanic and Asian Identities in U.S. Marriage Markets.”Demography38: 161–75.
50.
RosenfeldMichael J.2002. “Measures of Assimilation in the Marriage Market: Mexican Americans 1970–1990.”Journal of Marriage and the Family64: 152–62.
51.
RugglesSteven1994. “The Transformation of the American Family Structure.”American Historical Review99: 103–28.
52.
RugglesStevenSobekMatthewAlexanderTrentFitchCatherine A.GoekenRonaldHallPatricia KellyKingMiriamRonnanderChad2004. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0.Minneapolis, MN: Historical Census Projects, University of Minnesota (http://www.ipums.org/).
53.
SettersteinRichard A.Jr.FurstenbergFrank F.Jr.RumbautRubén G. eds.2005. On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
SmithTom W.1999. “The Emerging 21st Century American Family.” General Social Survey Social Change Report No. 42 (http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/dlib/sc-42.htm).
55.
SpickardPaul1989. Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
56.
StrasserMark1991. “Family, Definitions, and the Constitution: On the Antimiscegenation Analogy.”Suffolk University Law Review25: 981.
57.
TillyLouise A.ScottJoan W.1987. Women, Work and Family.2nd ed.New York: Routledge.
58.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.1975. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970,Bicentennial Edition, Part 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
59.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.2001. “Technical Note on Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses”. Maintained by Laura Yax. Revision date 7/31/2002. Retrieved February 7, 2004 (http://landview.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/samesex.html).
60.
WatkinsSusan CottsMenkenJane A.BongaartsJohn1987. “Demographic Foundations of Family Change.”American Sociological Review52: 346–58.
61.
WirthLouis1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.”American Journal of Sociology44: 1–24.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
