Studying the Longest 'Legal' U.S. Same-Sex Couples: A Case of Lessons Learned.

IF 2 Q2 FAMILY STUDIES
JOURNAL OF GLBT FAMILY STUDIES Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2019-06-27 DOI:10.1080/1550428x.2019.1626787
Esther D Rothblum, Kimberly F Balsam, Ellen D B Riggle, Sharon S Rostosky, Robert E Wickham
{"title":"Studying the Longest 'Legal' U.S. Same-Sex Couples: A Case of Lessons Learned.","authors":"Esther D Rothblum,&nbsp;Kimberly F Balsam,&nbsp;Ellen D B Riggle,&nbsp;Sharon S Rostosky,&nbsp;Robert E Wickham","doi":"10.1080/1550428x.2019.1626787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We review methodological opportunities and lessons learned in conducting a longitudinal, prospective study of same-sex couples with civil unions, recruited from a population-based sample, who were compared with same-sex couples in their friendship circle who did not have civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings and their spouse. At Time 1 (2002), Vermont was the only U.S. state to provide legal recognition similar to marriage to same-sex couples; couples came from other U.S. states and other countries to obtain a civil union. At Time 2 (2005), only one U.S. state had legalized same-sex marriage, and at Time 3 (2013) about half of U.S. states had legalized same-sex marriage, some within weeks of the onset of the Time 3 study. Opportunities included sampling legalized same-sex relationships from a population; the use of heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples not in legalized relationships as comparison samples from within the same social network; comparisons between sexual minority and heterosexual women and men with and without children; improvements in statistical methods for non-independence of data and missing data; and the use of mixed methodologies. Lessons learned included obtaining funding, locating participants over time as technologies changed, and on-going shifts in marriage laws during the study.</p>","PeriodicalId":46967,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF GLBT FAMILY STUDIES","volume":"16 3","pages":"259-276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1550428x.2019.1626787","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF GLBT FAMILY STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428x.2019.1626787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We review methodological opportunities and lessons learned in conducting a longitudinal, prospective study of same-sex couples with civil unions, recruited from a population-based sample, who were compared with same-sex couples in their friendship circle who did not have civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings and their spouse. At Time 1 (2002), Vermont was the only U.S. state to provide legal recognition similar to marriage to same-sex couples; couples came from other U.S. states and other countries to obtain a civil union. At Time 2 (2005), only one U.S. state had legalized same-sex marriage, and at Time 3 (2013) about half of U.S. states had legalized same-sex marriage, some within weeks of the onset of the Time 3 study. Opportunities included sampling legalized same-sex relationships from a population; the use of heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples not in legalized relationships as comparison samples from within the same social network; comparisons between sexual minority and heterosexual women and men with and without children; improvements in statistical methods for non-independence of data and missing data; and the use of mixed methodologies. Lessons learned included obtaining funding, locating participants over time as technologies changed, and on-going shifts in marriage laws during the study.

研究美国最长的“合法”同性伴侣:一个经验教训的案例。
我们回顾了对同性伴侣进行纵向、前瞻性研究的方法上的机会和经验教训,这些研究是从基于人群的样本中招募的,他们与朋友圈中没有民事结合的同性伴侣、异性恋已婚兄弟姐妹及其配偶进行了比较。在时间1(2002年),佛蒙特州是美国唯一一个向同性伴侣提供类似婚姻的法律承认的州;来自美国其他州和其他国家的夫妇获得了民事结合。在时代2(2005年),只有一个美国州将同性婚姻合法化,而在时代3(2013年),大约一半的美国州将同性婚姻合法化,其中一些州在时代3研究开始的几周内就将同性婚姻合法化。机会包括从人群中抽样合法化的同性关系;使用异性恋已婚夫妇和未处于合法关系的同性伴侣作为来自同一社会网络的比较样本;性少数与异性恋男女有子女与无子女的比较数据非独立性和缺失数据统计方法的改进以及混合方法的使用。经验教训包括获得资金,随着技术的变化确定参与者的位置,以及研究期间婚姻法的持续变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of GLBT Family Studies is a much-needed resource on the working dynamics of the diverse family structures found in every corner of the world. This groundbreaking new journal addresses the vital issues facing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals and their families. Edited by Dr. Jerry J. Bigner, who has provided expert witness testimony in legal cases and in the litigation involving same-sex marriages in Canada, the journal features interdisciplinary studies and scholarly essays on topics related to GLBT family life and functioning as well as relationships with other families.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信