scholarly journals Breaking Down Segregation: Shifting Geographies of Male Same-Sex Households Within Desegregating Cities

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Amy Spring
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Organization ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Ethnic Composition ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Multiple Processes ◽  
Almost All ◽  
The City ◽  
Racial Ethnic

AbstractFrom 2000 to 2010, the segregation of male same-sex couples from different-sex couples declined in almost all of the nation’s largest cities. This trend toward a more even distribution of male same-sex couples across city neighborhoods calls into question the demographic future of gay neighborhoods. However, it is unclear how exactly male same-sex couples are spatially reorganizing within desegregating cities. Multiple processes could be driving declining segregation, including declining shares of same-sex households within gay neighborhoods, the emergence of gay neighborhoods in new parts of the city, and/or a general dispersal of same-sex couples to almost all neighborhoods. Moreover, it is unclear what characteristics—like urbanicity, housing values, or racial/ethnic composition—define neighborhoods that have gained (or lost) same-sex partners. This chapter uses data from the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Censuses to investigate neighborhood-level changes within desegregating cities. The small number of increasingly segregated cities are also explored. Results indicate that increasing representation of male same-sex households across most neighborhoods and an expanding number of gay neighborhoods are important contributors to the trend of declining segregation. In contrast, the loss of gay neighborhoods from a city was fairly uncommon—most neighborhoods that obtained large concentrations of same-sex partners tended to keep those concentrations over time. Finally, the same residential expansion of same-sex households that occurred within desegregating cities did not occur in cities that experienced increasing segregation. These results have important implications for the spatial organization of same-sex households into the future. The chapter concludes with a discussion and critique of census data for the continued study of the geography and segregation of same-sex partners.

Can Same-Sex Partners Consent to Organ Donation?

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-44
Author(s):  
Roderick T. Chen ◽  
Alexandra K. Glazier
Keyword(s):  
Organ Donation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Union ◽  
Organ Donations ◽  
Domestic Partnerships ◽  
Appeals Court ◽  
Estate Law

As more same-sex couples enter into civil unions and domestic partnerships, the courts and other institutions are beginning to consider the implications of these partnerships in several areas of the law. A Georgia appeals court, for example, recently published the first opinion addressing this issue, ruling that a civil union of two women, obtained in Vermont, was not equivalent to a marriage for the purposes of interpreting a child custody agreement entered into in Georgia. As many observers predicted, the enactment of legislation recognizing same-sex partnerships has profound implications on the practice of family law, trust and estate law and healthcare law.This Article focuses on an area of healthcare law in which the legal status of a civil union or domestic partnership could have significant consequences—organ donations. In particular, it explores whether a civil union or domestic partner is an appropriate party to consent to an organ donation.

scholarly journals Same-Sex Couples and Cognitive Impairment: Evidence From the Health and Retirement Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Liu ◽  
Ning Hsieh ◽  
Zhenmei Zhang ◽  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Kenneth M Langa
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cognitive Status ◽  
Health And Retirement Study ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Retirement Study

Abstract Objectives We provide the first nationally representative population-based study of cognitive disparities among same-sex and different-sex couples in the United States. Methods We analyzed data from the Health and Retirement Study (2000–2016). The sample included 23,669 respondents (196 same-sex partners and 23,473 different-sex partners) aged 50 and older who contributed to 85,117 person-period records (496 from same-sex partners and 84,621 from different-sex partners). Cognitive impairment was assessed using the modified version of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Mixed-effects discrete-time hazard regression models were estimated to predict the odds of cognitive impairment. Results The estimated odds of cognitive impairment were 78% (p < .01) higher for same-sex partners than for different-sex partners. This disparity was mainly explained by differences in marital status and, to a much lesser extent, by differences in physical and mental health. Specifically, a significantly higher proportion of same-sex partners than different-sex partners were cohabiting rather than legally married (72.98% vs. 5.42% in the study sample), and cohabitors had a significantly higher risk of cognitive impairment than their married counterparts (odds ratio = 1.53, p < .001). Discussion The findings indicate that designing and implementing public policies and programs that work to eliminate societal homophobia, especially among older adults, is a critical step in reducing the elevated risk of cognitive impairment among older same-sex couples.

Response to “Cloning and Infertility” by Carson Strong (CQ Vol 7, No 3)

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy F. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Somatic Cell ◽  
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer ◽  
Nuclear Transfer ◽  
Human Cloning ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Infertile Couples

Carson Strong has argued that if human cloning were safe it should be available to some infertile couples as a matter of ethics and law. He holds that cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) should be available as a reproductive option for infertile couples who could not otherwise have a child genetically related to one member of the couple. In this analysis, Strong overlooks an important category of people to whom his argument might apply, couples he has not failed to consider elsewhere. In this discussion, however, Strong refers exclusively to opposite sex couples facing obstacles such as surgically removed ovaries and the inability to produce sperm. In fact, however, there are many adult couples who, while fertile in and of themselves, are not fertile as couples. This group includes not only opposite sex couples but coupled same sex partners as well. I believe the defenses Strong offers regarding the use of SCNT by opposite sex infertile couples would extend to same sex couples for two reasons. First, some same sex couples might face the inability to have a genetically related child, and second, Strong's arguments ultimately ground a general defense of SCNT independent of the question of a couple's fertility.

scholarly journals Adoção e casais do mesmo sexo

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (29) ◽  
pp. 30-46
Author(s):  
Neliana Rodean
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Biological Parent ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Period ◽  
Domestic Legislation

The European “backyard of rights” is enlarging and Member States face a new period of acknowledgment of human rights. The guarantee of the new rights occurs both through national legislation and through the jurisprudence of international or supranational courts. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) became the “fourth judge” called to intervene when the domestic legislation is not guardian of new rights regarding the recognition of the same-sex couples but also the adoption of a child by these couples. In this sense, recently the ECtHR ruled that the impossibility of second-parent adoption in a same-sex relationship is  discriminatory when such adoption is possible for unmarried heterosexual couples, although the exclusion of the biological parent. Thus, the decision of the ECtHR established the principle that the adoption of children by same-sex partners should be possible, as it is for heterosexual unmarried couples.

scholarly journals Gender Conformity, Perceptions of Shared Power, and Marital Quality in Same- and Different-Sex Marriages

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda M. Pollitt ◽  
Brandon A. Robinson ◽  
Debra Umberson
Keyword(s):  
Marital Quality ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Gender Conformity ◽  
Unpaid Labor ◽  
Shared Power ◽  
And Bisexual ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Bisexual People

Research on gender inequality within different-sex marriages shows that women do more unpaid labor than men, and that the perception of inequality influences perceptions of marital quality. Yet research on same-sex couples suggests the importance of considering how gender is relational. Past studies show that same-sex partners share unpaid labor more equally and perceive greater equity than do different-sex partners, and that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are less gender conforming than heterosexuals. However, studies have not considered how gender conformity might shape inequalities and marital quality within same- and different-sex unions. In this study, we analyze dyadic data from both spouses in same- and different-sex marriages to explore how sex of spouse and gender conformity influence perceptions of shared power within the relationship, which, in turn, influences marital quality. Results show that greater gender conformity is related to stronger perceptions of shared power in different-sex and male same-sex couples but not in female same-sex couples. Perceptions of shared power are positively associated with marital quality in all union types. Our findings suggest that maintaining hegemonic masculinity and power inequalities may be salient to marriages with men. In female same-sex couples, gender and its relation to power inequalities may carry less meaning.

scholarly journals Somewhere over the rainbow: Italy and the regulation of same-sex unions

Modern Italy ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Alessia Donà
Keyword(s):  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
West European Country ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Societal Actors ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
Almost All

While almost all European democracies from the 1980s started to accord legal recognition to same-sex couples, Italy was, in 2016, the last West European country to adopt a regulation, after a tortuous path. Why was Italy such a latecomer? What kind of barriers were encountered by the legislative process? What were the factors behind the policy change? To answer these questions, this article first discusses current morality policymaking, paying specific attention to the literature dealing with same-sex partnerships. Second, it provides a reconstruction of the Italian policy trajectory, from the entrance of the issue into political debate until the enactment of the civil union law, by considering both partisan and societal actors for and against the legislative initiative. The article argues that the Italian progress towards the regulation of same-sex unions depended on the balance of power between change and blocking coalitions and their degree of congruence during the policymaking process. In 2016 the government formed a broad consensus and the parliament passed a law on civil unions. However, the new law represented only a small departure from the status quo due to the low congruence between actors within the change coalition.

scholarly journals The treatment works: Revisiting a key link in contextual theories of political behavior

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205316801876867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Wilcox-Archuleta
Keyword(s):  
Census Data ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Local Environment ◽  
Ethnic Composition ◽  
Blacks And Whites ◽  
Composition I ◽  
Ethnic Neighborhood ◽  
Us Census ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Racial Ethnic

The use of self-reported contextual factors is prominent in political science. While recent research demonstrates that perceptions of contextual factors positively associate with census measured factors, it is less clear for whom and under what conditions this relationship holds. In this paper, I examine the relationship between census measured racial and ethnic composition and perceived racial and ethnic neighborhood composition. I use the 2008 and 2012 Collaborative Multi-Racial Post-Election Study (CMPS) datasets and append US Census data to test how well respondents understand the racial and ethnic composition of their neighborhood. Leveraging the non-White oversamples in the CMPS, I am able to test this relationship among Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. I find a positive relationship between perceived neighborhood composition and census measured composition. Respondents who live in areas with higher proportions of a racial/ethnic group are more likely to perceive that their neighborhood is composed of that group. These findings hold across Black, Latino, and White sub-samples. These findings complement and extend recent work about how well respondents understand their local environment.

scholarly journals The Residential Segregation of Same-Sex Households from Different-Sex Households in Metropolitan USA, circa-2010

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
D'Lane Compton ◽  
Dudley Poston ◽  
Qian Xiong ◽  
Emily Knox
Keyword(s):  
Residential Segregation ◽  
Metropolitan Areas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Community Surveys ◽  
Major Area ◽  
Gay Males ◽  
Gay Male ◽  
Racial Ethnic

Residential segregation is a major area of research in demography. By far the majority of the research has focused on the segregation of racial/ethnic minorities from the majority white group in metropolitan areas of the United States and several other countries. Few analyses have focused on the spatial segregation of sexual minorities from the majority. In this paper we analyze the residential segregation of gay male and lesbian households from heterosexual married and heterosexual cohabiting households. We use two dissimilarity measures of residential segregation and draw on data from the American Community Surveys for 2008 through 2012 to calculate segregation scores for the 100 MSAs with the largest gay male and lesbian populations in around the year 2010. We show that there is a sizable amount of homosexual-heterosexual residential segregation. We also show that gay males are more segregated from different-sex partners than are lesbians, and that levels of segregation vary positively across the cities with the size of the gay and lesbian populations.

THE DIVERSITY OF INTEGRATION IN A MULTIETHNIC METROPOLIS

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Krysan ◽  
Courtney Carter ◽  
Marieke van Londen
Keyword(s):  
Residential Segregation ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Ethnic Composition ◽  
Racial Residential Segregation ◽  
Chicago Metropolitan Area ◽  
Residential Stratification ◽  
Nuanced Understanding ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Racial Ethnic

AbstractAlthough there is little debate that Census data reveal declines in standard measures of segregation over the past several decades, depending on who you ask, racial residential segregation is either just about gone or is stubbornly persistent. In this study, we draw attention to how the murkiness in the conceptualization of what has replaced ‘segregation’ and the related question of what integration is, contributes to this disagreement. Through an analysis of attitudes toward racially integrated neighborhoods, we demonstrate the pitfalls of our lack of consistency and clarity about the conceptual and operational definition of integration. Our analysis reveals the diversity of attitudes toward integrated communities—depending on who is asked, and what kind of integration is considered—and points to a fragility of commitment to the ideals of integration. We do this by using an innovative survey dataset that includes both open and closed-ended questions asked of a large probability sample of Whites, African Americans, and Latinos living in the Chicago metropolitan area. The survey asked individuals to describe their ideal neighborhood racial/ethnic composition and explain why it was ideal; they were then asked to describe (and explain) their least desired neighborhood racial/ethnic composition. Juxtaposing the results, we reveal that integration is both enthusiastically endorsed and much maligned—even within the same person—and that whether it is good or bad very much depends on the type of integration. We argue that appreciating the diversity of integration attitudes is critical if we are to develop a more nuanced understanding of future patterns of residential stratification in our increasingly diverse nation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document