DOCSLIB.ORG

First Marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006-2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006-2010 Number 49 n March 22, 2012 First Marriages in the United States: Data From the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth by Casey E. Copen, Ph.D.; Kimberly Daniels, Ph.D.; Jonathan Vespa, Ph.D.; and William D. Mosher, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics Abstract and cohabitation; contraception, sterilization, and infertility; pregnancy Objectives—This report shows trends and group differences in current outcomes; and births. This information marital status, with a focus on first marriages among women and men aged is gathered from women and men aged 15–44 years in the United States. Trends and group differences in the timing and 15–44—the age range in which 99.7% duration of first marriages are also discussed. These data are based on the of all births occur (4). The NSFG is 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). National estimates of jointly planned and funded by the probabilities of first marriage by age and probabilities of separation and divorce Centers for Disease Control and for women and men’s first marriages are presented by a variety of demographic Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for characteristics. Data are compared with similar measures for 1982, 1995, and Health Statistics (NCHS) and several 2002. other programs of the U.S. Department Methods—The analyses presented in this report are based on a nationally of Health and Human Services (see representative sample of 12,279 women and 10,403 men aged 15–44 years in the ‘‘Acknowledgments’’). household population of the United States. The overall response rate for the The NSFG contains a full marriage 2006–2010 NSFG was 77%—78% for women and 75% for men. history for both women and men; Results—The percentage of women who were currently cohabiting (living however, the focus of the current report with a man in a sexual relationship) rose from 3.0% in 1982 to 11% in 2006– is on first marriages. First, this report 2010; it was higher in some groups, including Hispanic groups, and the less presents the current marital status of educated. In 2006–2010, women and men married for the first time at older ages women and men in 2006–2010 by than in previous years. The median age at first marriage was 25.8 for women and selected demographic characteristics, 28.3 for men. Premarital cohabitation contributed to the delay in first marriage with comparisons to prior NSFG for both women and men. surveys in 1982, 1995, and 2002 (2,5,6). Keywords: union formation • divorce • cohabitation Second, this report shows trends and group differences in the timing of first marriage and the outcomes of these before ever marrying (1,2). Current Introduction marriages in the United States in estimates of divorce indicate that about The timing and duration of first 2006–2010 and compares these half of first marriages end in divorce marriages in the United States changed estimates with the same NSFG surveys, (2,3). Since 1973, the National Survey dramatically during the second half of noted above. Tables that show the of Family Growth (NSFG) has collected the twentieth century, continuing into cohabitation experiences of women and data on factors affecting family the twenty-first century. People are men are also presented; however, more marrying for the first time at older ages, formation, growth, and dissolution— detail on cohabitation will be covered in and many adults cohabit with a partner including histories of marriage, divorce, a forthcoming report. Several specific U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics Page 2 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 49 n March 22, 2012 questions are addressed for women and Divorce from first marriage than in the past (17). Second, the men (aged 15–44 except where noted): decision to marry from cohabitation is Demographers use a variety of conditioned by the attitudes and + What are the current marital and approaches to describe trends and group expectations of cohabitors toward cohabiting statuses of women and differences in marital dissolution. One marriage, which vary by sex, race and men (Tables 1 and 2)? such measure, the crude divorce rate, is ethnicity, and socioeconomic status defined as the number of divorces per + How old are women and men aged (18–20). 1,000 people in the population. In 2009, 18–44 when they marry for the first The inclusion of cohabitation in this the national rate of divorce was 9.7 per time (Tables 3 and 4)? report is intended to show the 1,000 for women aged 15 and over and + How long do first marriages last relationship between premarital 9.2 per 1,000 for men aged 15 and over (Tables 5–7)? cohabitation and the stability of first (10). Although useful for describing marriages. However, the multivariate + How are prior experiences with changes in divorce over time, the crude models needed to disentangle the cohabitation, marriage, and births divorce rate does not provide complex relationship between premarital associated with how long first information on the percentage of first cohabitation and the stability of first marriages last (Tables 5–7)? marriages that end in divorce. Another marriages are beyond the scope of this method used to describe the rate of + How long are women and men report. separated from their first marriage divorce is to calculate how many first before divorce (Table 8)? marriages end within a given year, or set of adjacent years. In the 1995 Methods NSFG, this type of measure was used to Background show that 50% of all women’s first Data source marriages end in separation or divorce Premarital cohabitation and The NSFG has been conducted after 20 years (6). Similarly, the 2002 seven times by CDC’s NCHS: in 1973 first marriage NSFG showed about one-third of men’s and 1976 with samples of married and first marriages ended in divorce after 10 Marriage is one of the primary formerly married women; in 1982, 1988, events during the transition to years (2). There are many factors that and 1995 with samples of women of all adulthood. Despite high expectations influence the likelihood of divorce from marital status categories; and in 2002 that they will eventually marry, many a first marriage, including educational and 2006–2010 with national samples of young adults in the United States are attainment, employment status, and both women and men aged 15–44. postponing first marriage (7). While premarital cohabitation (11). The 2006–2010 NSFG was based deferring marriage, many young adults on 22,682 face-to-face interviews— may choose to cohabit with a partner. The link between premarital 12,279 with women and 10,403 with Cohabitation has increasingly become cohabitation and divorce men, aged 15–44 years in the household the first coresidential union formed from first marriage among young adults in the United States population of the United States. The (8). Among women, 68% of unions One of the factors related to the sample design of the NSFG is based on formed in 1997–2001 began as a likelihood of divorce from a first independent samples of women and cohabitation rather than as a marriage marriage is whether or not a person men, not on couples. Men and women (8). If entry into any type of union, lives with a partner before marrying. It living on military bases or in institutions marriage or cohabitation, is taken into has been well documented that women were not included in the survey. The account, then the timing of a first union and men who cohabit with their future sample did include persons temporarily occurs at roughly the same point in the spouse before first marriage are more living away from the household in a life course as marriage did in the past likely to divorce than those who do not college dormitory, sorority, or fraternity (9). Given the place of cohabitation in cohabit with their spouse before first (21). The interviews were administered contemporary union formation, marriage (12–14). However, recent in person by trained female interviewers descriptions of marital behavior, research suggests that the association primarily in the respondents’ homes. particularly those concerning trends over between premarital cohabitation and The 2006–2010 sample is a nationally time, are more complete when marital instability for first marriages representative multistage area cohabitation is also measured. may have weakened over time because probability sample drawn from 110 Accordingly, this report contains data on it is less apparent for more recent birth areas, or ‘‘Primary Sampling Units’’ premarital cohabitation to measure its cohorts (15,16). There are several (PSUs) across the country. To protect association with the stability of first explanations posited for these findings. the respondent’s privacy, only one marriage. First, cohabitation has been practiced person was interviewed in each selected among individuals at both low and high household. In 2006–2010, persons aged risk of marital disruption, thus may be 15–19 and black and Hispanic adults less predictive of a marital dissolution were sampled at higher rates than National Health Statistics Reports n Number 49 n March 22, 2012 Page 3 others. The sample is designed to they had children from prior incomplete. For respondents whose produce national, not state, estimates. relationships. union has not yet ended as of the date All respondents were given written of interview, the end date of the union is In this report, cohabitation histories and oral information about the survey unknown, and it is not known how long are included in some tables to provide a and were informed that participation the union will last. The duration of such more complete picture of the union was voluntary.
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]
  • 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
    [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]