DOCSLIB.ORG

How Cohabitation, Marriage, Separation and Divorce Influence BMI: a Prospective Panel Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Cohabitation, Marriage, Separation and Divorce Influence BMI: a Prospective Panel Study A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Mata, Jutta; Richter, David; Schneider, Thorsten; Hertwig, Ralph Working Paper How cohabitation, marriage, separation and divorce influence BMI: A prospective panel study SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, No. 973 Provided in Cooperation with: German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) Suggested Citation: Mata, Jutta; Richter, David; Schneider, Thorsten; Hertwig, Ralph (2018) : How cohabitation, marriage, separation and divorce influence BMI: A prospective panel study, SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, No. 973, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/181026 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu The German Socio-Economic Panel study 973 2018 SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research SOEP — The German Socio-Economic Panel study at DIW Berlin 973-2018 How Cohabitation, Marriage, Separation and Divorce Influence BMI: A Prospective Panel Study Jutta Mata, David Richter, Thorsten Schneider, Ralph Hertwig SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research at DIW Berlin This series presents research findings based either directly on data from the German Socio- Economic Panel study (SOEP) or using SOEP data as part of an internationally comparable data set (e.g. CNEF, ECHP, LIS, LWS, CHER/PACO). SOEP is a truly multidisciplinary household panel study covering a wide range of social and behavioral sciences: economics, sociology, psychology, survey methodology, econometrics and applied statistics, educational science, political science, public health, behavioral genetics, demography, geography, and sport science. The decision to publish a submission in SOEPpapers is made by a board of editors chosen by the DIW Berlin to represent the wide range of disciplines covered by SOEP. There is no external referee process and papers are either accepted or rejected without revision. Papers appear in this series as works in progress and may also appear elsewhere. They often represent preliminary studies and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be requested from the author directly. Any opinions expressed in this series are those of the author(s) and not those of DIW Berlin. Research disseminated by DIW Berlin may include views on public policy issues, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The SOEPpapers are available at http://www.diw.de/soeppapers Editors: Jan Goebel (Spatial Economics) Stefan Liebig (Sociology) David Richter (Psychology) Carsten Schröder (Public Economics) Jürgen Schupp (Sociology) Conchita D’Ambrosio (Public Economics, DIW Research Fellow) Denis Gerstorf (Psychology, DIW Research Fellow) Elke Holst (Gender Studies, DIW Research Director) Martin Kroh (Political Science, Survey Methodology) Jörg-Peter Schräpler (Survey Methodology, DIW Research Fellow) Thomas Siedler (Empirical Economics, DIW Research Fellow) C. Katharina Spieß (Education and Family Economics) Gert G. Wagner (Social Sciences) ISSN: 1864-6689 (online) German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) DIW Berlin Mohrenstrasse 58 10117 Berlin, Germany Contact: [email protected] In press: Health Psychology How Cohabitation, Marriage, Separation and Divorce Influence BMI: A Prospective Panel Study Jutta Mata Health Psychology, Department of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Germany, and Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany David Richter German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Berlin, Germany Thorsten Schneider Institute of Sociology, University of Leipzig, Germany Ralph Hertwig Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany © 2018, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/hea0000654 Author Note Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jutta Mata, University of Mannheim, Health Psychology, L13, 17, 68131 Mannheim, Germany. E-mail: mata@uni- mannheim.de We are grateful to Susannah Goss, Lena Haas, Petra Kühner-Knaup, Emelie Letzsch, and Nicole Engelhardt. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Abstract Objective: This study examines how changes in cohabitation or marital status affect Body Mass Index (BMI) over time in a large representative sample. Methods: Participants were 20,950 individuals (50% female; 19 to 100 years), representative of the German population, who provided 81,926 observations over 16 years. Face-to-face interviews were used to obtain demographic data, including cohabitation and marital status, height, body weight, and weight-relevant behaviors (exercise, healthy eating, and smoking). Control variables included age, notable changes in status (life events such as having children or change in employment status), perceived stress, and subjective health. Results: Cohabitation led to significant weight gain in men and women—after four years or longer, about twice the gain associated with marriage (controlling for weight-related behaviors, age, children, employment, stress, and health). BMI after separation was largely comparable to BMI before starting cohabitation; women lost some weight in the first year, men gained some weight after four or more years of separation. Divorce generally predicted weight gain. Changes in exercise, healthy eating, and smoking did not attenuate the effect of changes in relationship status on BMI. Conclusions: This is one of the first longitudinal studies to directly compare the effects of key changes in relationship status on BMI. The findings extend and qualify previous results by showing that the benefits of marriage or cohabitation do not necessarily include a healthier BMI. They also suggest that relationship transitions—particularly moving in with a partner and divorce—may be important time windows for weight gain prevention. Keywords: obesity, marriage, divorce, health, longitudinal 2 Social relationships influence body weight and obesity (Christakis & Fowler, 2007). Two major relationship transitions that most adults experience are moving in with a partner and getting married (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). Several longitudinal studies suggest that particularly getting married (e.g., Gallo, Troxel, Matthews, & Kuller, 2003; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001), but also starting to cohabit (Kohn & Averett, 2014; Musick & Bumpass, 2012), is beneficial for general health. In contrast, separating from a partner or divorcing has detrimental health effects (e.g., Sbarra, Law, & Portley, 2011). However, less is known about how these relationship transitions affect body weight, an important indicator of general health. According to the marriage market hypothesis, individuals who are no longer on the marriage market, and thus no longer concerned with attracting a mate, gain weight (e.g., Meltzer, Novak, McNulty, Butler, & Karney, 2013). Following the same logic, divorcees strive to lose weight when they re-enter the marriage market (Averett, Sikora, & Argys, 2008; Lundborg, Nystedt, & Lindgren, 2007). This hypothesis makes no explicit predictions about the effects of starting or ending cohabitation. Some authors suggest that cohabitation has similar effects on health as marriage (Kohn & Averett, 2014; Musick & Bumpass, 2012); others suggest qualitatively different effects (e.g., Marcussen, 2005). Most empirical studies on the relation between marital transitions and BMI support the marriage market hypothesis. A review of longitudinal studies examining marital transitions and changes in BMI (Dinour, Leung, Tripicchio, Khan, & Yeh, 2012) found that six of 13 studies reported weight increases for both genders after marriage, five reported increases for one gender only, and two reported no weight change. Three of four studies examining weight changes after starting cohabitation showed increased risks of weight gain. Findings for weight changes after divorce were mixed: Two of 12 studies reported weight loss in both genders, eight reported weight loss in one gender, and two reported no weight change. Only one study has examined the effects of ending cohabitation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Separation and Divorce Information
    Separation and Divorce Information Separation and Divorce Definitions The Legal Process of Separation and Divorce Divorce Mediation Child Support The Emotional Process of Divorce Selecting and Working with Professionals Children and Divorce Taking Care of Yourself During Separation and Divorce The Fairfax County Commission for Women 12000 Government Center Parkway Suite 339 Fairfax, VA 22035 703-324-5730; 711 TTY © 1991; Revised: June 1997, July 2004, August 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................... 1 Separation and Divorce Definitions .................................................... 3 The Legal Process of Separation and Divorce................................... 7 Divorce Mediation............................................................................... 9 Child Support.................................................................................... 11 The Emotional Process of Divorce ................................................... 14 Selecting and Working With Professionals....................................... 16 Children and Divorce........................................................................ 19 Taking Care of Yourself During Separation and Divorce.................. 21 Attorney and Legal Service Referrals............................................... 24 Other Resources .............................................................................. 25 Introduction The Fairfax County Commission for Women developed this information
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining Family in the Work Place Steven N
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 2 Article 4 1994 Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining Family in the Work Place Steven N. Hargrove Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven N. Hargrove Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining Family in the Work Place, 6 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 49 (1994). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol6/iss2/4 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining Family in the Work Place by Steven N. Hargrove I. INTRODUCTION tion.4 Insurance plans alone, includ- The complexity and diversity of ing health insurance, constitute six what constitutes a "family" is ever- percent of total compensation costs.' changing. Today, the traditional no- Gay men and lesbians feel discrimi- tion of mother, father, and children nated against by not being able to does not exist in the majority of house- enroll partners in insurance plans or holds. Only 22 percent of America's take time off to care for an ailing 91.1 million households fit the tradi- partner. Domestic partnership provi- tional description of married, hetero- sions lessen the economic discrimina- sexual, two-parent families.' Instead, tion resulting from the ban on same- families consist of a wide range of lifestyles and living arrangements, including: working single-parents, Since lesbians and gay men foster parents, step-parents, unmar- are not allowed to marry, the ried heterosexual partners, homo- push for domestic sexual partners, roommates, extended partnership benefits in the families, and unmarried couples liv- ing together with children.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidentiary Privileges for Cohabiting Parents: Protecting Children Inside and Outside of Marriage Mark Glover Louisiana State University Law Center
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 70 | Number 3 Spring 2010 Evidentiary Privileges for Cohabiting Parents: Protecting Children Inside and Outside of Marriage Mark Glover Louisiana State University Law Center Repository Citation Mark Glover, Evidentiary Privileges for Cohabiting Parents: Protecting Children Inside and Outside of Marriage, 70 La. L. Rev. (2010) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol70/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Evidentiary Privileges for Cohabiting Parents: Protecting Children Inside and Outside of Marriage Mark Glover* INTRODUCTION Unmarried cohabitants have long endured the stigma that accompanies a lifestyle that society deems immoral. Couples who choose to live together out of wedlock traditionally have been ostracized for "living in sin 1 and have been characterized as engaging in "deviant behavior."2 Society's traditional disapproval of this behavior was reflected in the laws of most states, which, prior to the 1960s, criminalized unmarried cohabitation.3 However, "[s]ocial mores regarding cohabitation between unmarried parties have changed dramatically in recent years."4 The once depraved act of unmarried cohabitation has largely lost its moral disapproval.5 Copyright 2010, by MARK GLOVER. * J.D., magna cum laude, Boston University School of Law, 2008. 1. Nicholas Bala, The Debates About Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United States: Controversy Over the Evolution of a Fundamental Social Institution, 20 BYU J.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of the 2010 Civil Code on Trends in Joint Physical Custody in Catalonia
    EFFECTS OF THE 2010 CIVIL CODE ON TRENDS IN JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY IN CATALONIA. A COMPARISON WITH THE Document downloaded from www.cairn-int.info - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 158.109.138.45 09/05/2017 14h03. © I.N.E.D REST OF SPAIN Montserrat Solsona, Jeroen Spijker I.N.E.D | « Population » 2016/2 Vol. 71 | pages 297 - 323 ISSN 0032-4663 ISBN 9782733210666 This document is a translation of: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Montserrat Solsona, Jeroen Spijker, « Influence du Code civil catalan (2010) sur les décisions de garde partagée. Comparaisons entre la Catalogne et le reste de Espagne », Population 2016/2 (Vol. 71), p. 297-323. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Available online at : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPU_1602_0313--effects-of-the-2010-civil-code- on.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How to cite this article : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Montserrat Solsona, Jeroen Spijker, « Influence du Code civil catalan (2010) sur les décisions de garde partagée. Comparaisons entre la Catalogne et le reste de Espagne », Population 2016/2 (Vol. 71), p. 297-323. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Cohabitation, Parental Divorce, & Marital Success
    A “Cohabitation Effect”? Cohabitation, Parental Divorce, & Marital Success THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jennifer M. Hunt Graduate Program in Human Ecology The Ohio State University 2009 Master's Examination Committee: Claire M. Kamp Dush, Advisor Anastasia Snyder Copyright by Jennifer M. Hunt 2009 Abstract This thesis sets out to expand the literature on the “cohabitation effect”; that is, the idea that couples who cohabit before marriage have greater marital instability than couples who do not live together before marriage. I test two competing hypotheses. First, the selection/cumulative risk perspective arguing that cohabiters already possess numerous risk factors associated with poor relationship outcomes, so the addition of exposure to parental divorce makes these specific cohabiters even worse off. Following this hypothesis, I predict the children of divorce who cohabit will have lower levels of marital quality and a greater risk of divorce as compared to the children of intact families who cohabit. Also, all respondents who cohabit will have lower levels of marital quality and a greater risk of divorce as compared with the children of intact families who do not cohabit. The second hypothesis favors the differential experience of cohabitation perspective. This assumes that children of divorce want to prevent what they went through while experiencing their own parents’ divorce, so they may use cohabitation as way to “weed out” a bad relationship before marriage. So I hypothesize that children of divorce who cohabit will have higher levels of marital quality and a lower risk of divorce as compared to the children of intact families who cohabit.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohabitation: a Snapshot
    COHABITATION: A SNAPSHOT by Hilda Rodriguez May 1998 Demographics · In the last two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in cohabitation. Between 1970 and 1994, the number of unmarried couples living together rose from about 500,000 to almost 3.7 million. · There has also been a substantial increase in the number of children living in a cohabiting household. In 1994, 35% of cohabiting households included children under the age of 15, compared with 27% in 1980. · Many families with children that are officially defined as “single parent” actually contain two unmarried parents. In 1990, one in seven children reported as living in a single-parent household resided with a cohabiting couple. · For many, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage. Whereas just 11% of marriages between 1965-1974 were preceded by cohabitation, between 1980-84, 44% of all marriages involved at least one spouse who had cohabited. It is estimated that half of all couples who married after 1985 began their relationship as cohabiters. · There is surprisingly little variation by gender or ethnicity in the rate of living in a cohabiting family situation. As of March 1991, 3.9% of cohabiters were males and 3.5% were females. 3.4% were Non-Hispanic White, 5.3% were Non-Hispanic Black and 3.9% were Hispanic. · While the differential is not large, cohabitation is not only more frequent but also lasts longer for blacks than for whites. · Women who cohabit have a lower probability of marriage than women who do not. If a woman does not marry her first cohabiting partner, her chances of marriage decrease even further.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohabitation: New Views on a New Lifestyle
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 4 Article 5 Fall 1978 Cohabitation: New Views on a New Lifestyle D. Judith Keith Ronald L. Nelson Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Family Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation D. J. Keith & Ronald L. Nelson, Cohabitation: New Views on a New Lifestyle, 6 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1393 (1978) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol6/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COHABITATION: NEW VIEWS ON A NEW LIFESTYLE D. JUDITH KEITH AND RONALD L. NELSON I. INTRODUCTION Nonmarital cohabitation is becoming a noticeably common life- style in America. Attractive to young adults as well as to numerous middle-aged and older people,' nonmarital cohabitation increased in popularity by 700% from 1960 to 1970.2 Presently, it is believed to be the living arrangement of six to eight million Americans.' The nation's courts as well are beginning to recognize unwedded cohabitation as a theoretically defensible lifestyle. A New York court recently stated that "[riesidence together of an unmarried male and female without the benefit of a sermonized marriage is not per se evil nor one of immorality."' Similarly, a recent Minnesota opinion discussing unmarried, cohabiting adults asserted that it "does not believe it is necessary to either condemn or condone any relationship." 5 Despite these recent signs of recognition, the general judicial re- sponse to unwedded cohabitations has been to label them "meretricious" or "illicit" relationships' and to deal with them solely in the more familiar terms of traditional marriage.7 Cohabita- 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce in a Model of Match Quality∗
    Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce in a Model of Match Quality∗ Michael J. Brien Lee A. Lillard Deloitte & Touche LLP University of Michigan Steven Stern University of Virginia September 2002 Abstract The objective of this research is to develop and estimate an economic model of nonmarital cohabitation, marriage, and divorce that is consistent with current data on the formation and dissolution of relationships. Jo- vanovic’s (1979) theoretical matching model is extended to help explain household formation and dissolution behavior. Implications of the model reveal what factors inßuence the decision to start a relationship, what form this relationship will take, and the relative stability of the various types of unions. The structural parameters of the model are estimated using longi- tudinal data from a sample of female high school seniors from the U.S. New ∗We would like to thank B. Ravikumar, William Johnson, Francis Kramarz, Bob Rosenthal, and seminar participants at the 1997 Summer Research Workshop at the Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, George Washington University, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Boston University, the 1998 Eco- nomic Demography Workshop at the meetings of Population Association of America, the 1998 SITE meetings, and the Southern Economic Association meetings. This research was partially supported by Grants P-50-12639, R01-HD30856, and R01-HD31585 from the NICHD. Brien also would like to acknowledge research support from the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the institutions with which they are affiliated.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohabitation Decisions
    Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s) and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of any agency of the Federal government or the National Center for Family & Marriage Research. 1 Dating Couples’ Views about Cohabitation: The Role of Social Context Wendy D. Manning Jessica A. Cohen Pamela J. Smock* Gayra Ostgaard Department of Sociology and Center for Family and Demographic Research Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 419-372-2850 [email protected] *Department of Sociology and Population Studies Center The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48106 This research was supported by grants from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03HD039835 and R01HD040910) to the first and third authors. It was also supported by the Center for Family and Demographic Research at Bowling Green State University (R24HD050959), which receives core funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Population Studies Center of the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan (R24HD041028). We thank Claudia Vercellotti for her dedication and outstanding interview skills. 2 Dating Couples’ Views about Cohabitation: The Role of Social Context ABSTRACT Young adults are increasingly cohabiting, but few studies have considered how their social context influences views of cohabitation. Drawing on 40 semi-structured interviews with dating respondents and their partners (20 couples), we explore the self-reported effects of partners, peers, and parents on evaluations of cohabitation. Peers are a key source of social influence, with respondents and their partners using the vicarious trials of their peer networks to judge how cohabitation would affect their own relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Below the Statutory Age--Effect of Cohabitation After Arriving at the Age Town Hall University of Kentucky
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 24 | Issue 1 Article 7 1935 Marriage below the Statutory Age--Effect of Cohabitation after Arriving at the Age Town Hall University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Family Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Hall, Town (1935) "Marriage below the Statutory Age--Effect of Cohabitation after Arriving at the Age," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 24 : Iss. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol24/iss1/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT NOTES MARRIAGE BELOW THE STATUTORY AGE-EFFECT OF COHABITATION AFTER ARRIVING AT THAT AGE. A statute in Ohio' declared that male persons eighteen years of age and females who were sixteen could be joined in marriage-pro- vided that male persons under twenty-one and females under eighteen should first obtain the consent of their parents. On April 5, 1877, James Dick, twenty-one, married Irena Holtz, who did not become sixteen until May 1st. Parental consent, as required by the statute, was not given to the marriage. After the marriage had subsisted for two weeks, the wife's mother, actuated by malice toward the son-in-law, induced her daughter to separate from him and return to the home of her parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Scrutinizing Polygamy: Utah¿S Brown V
    Emory Law Journal Volume 64 Issue 6 Paper Symposium — Polygamous Unions? Charting the Contours of Marriage Law's Frontier 2015 Scrutinizing Polygamy: Utah¿s Brown v. Buhman and British Columbia¿s Reference re: Section 293 Maura I. Strassberg Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation Maura I. Strassberg, Scrutinizing Polygamy: Utah¿s Brown v. Buhman and British Columbia¿s Reference re: Section 293, 64 Emory L. J. 1815 (2015). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol64/iss6/5 This Articles & Essays is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STRASSBERG GALLEYSPROOFS2 5/27/2015 2:06 PM SCRUTINIZING POLYGAMY: UTAH’S BROWN V. BUHMAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA’S REFERENCE RE: SECTION 293 ∗ Maura I. Strassberg ABSTRACT In Brown v. Buhman, the recent challenge to the Utah law criminalizing polygamy brought by the stars of the reality television show Sister Wives, a federal district court determined both that strict scrutiny was required and that strict scrutiny could not be satisfied. A significant factor in this result was the state’s failure to mount a strong defense of the law, assuming that it could rely on long standing polygamy precedents such as the United States Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. United States and more recent Tenth Circuit and Utah Supreme Court decisions to justify limiting scrutiny to rational basis and to provide legitimate reasons for the criminalization of polygamy.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Marriage Age Laws and the Prevalence of Child Marriage and Adolescent Birth: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa
    Minimum Marriage Age Laws and the Prevalence Of Child Marriage and Adolescent Birth: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa By Belinda CONTEXT: The relationship of national laws that prohibit child marriage with the prevalence of child marriage and Maswikwa, adolescent birth is not well understood. Linda Richter, Jay Kaufman and METHODS: Data from Demographic and Health Surveys and from the Child Marriage Database created by the Arijit Nandi MACHEquity program at McGill University were used to examine the relationship between laws that consistently set the age for marriage for girls at 18 or older and the prevalence of child marriage and teenage childbearing in 12 Sub-Saharan African countries. Countries were considered to have consistent laws against child marriage if they Belinda Maswikwa required females to be 18 or older to marry, to marry with parental consent and to consent to sex. Associations is a researcher and Linda Richter is between consistent laws and the two outcomes were identified using multivariate regression models. distinguished research fellow, Human RESULTS: Four of the 12 countries had laws that consistently set the minimum age for marriage at 18 or older. Sciences Research After adjustment for covariates, the prevalence of child marriage was 40% lower in countries with consistent laws Council, Durban, against child marriage than in countries without consistent laws against the practice (prevalence ratio, 0.6). The South Africa. Jay Kaufman is professor, prevalence of teenage childbearing was 25% lower in countries with consistent minimum marriage age laws than Department of Epide- in countries without consistent laws (0.8). miology, Biostatistics and Occupational CONCLUSION: Our results support the hypothesis that consistent minimum marriage age laws protect against the Health, and Arijit exploitation of girls.
    [Show full text]