Public sentiment is strong on both sides of arguments related to LD 1020, the “Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom” in Maine and the upcoming referendum that would overturn that law. This is unsurprising because this issue evokes emotional responses, and emotions often influence how we vote.

Some Mainers will vote “no” because they agree with the state leaders who wrote in a September memo, “Denying committed couples the ability to join in marriage, in our view … violates these bedrock promises in our Constitution.” Others will vote “yes” because they agree with Maine Marriage Alliance’s stance that the law represents a “threat to marriage.”

It is helpful to examine what the relevant social science research says about the impact of same-sex marriage on the institution of marriage, society and families.

Opinion on the definition of marriage is a large issue in this debate, but research does not explore or support opinions. How one defines marriage is a personal choice. Research suggests that opening marriage to same-sex couples creates a normative standard for all couples, providing legal rights as well as a larger acceptance within society.

Most believe that marriage supports society, because couples affirm their commitment to a value rooted in societal history. According to 2000 Census figures, 8.95 percent of the unmarried-couple households in Maine were same-sex couples. Many of these couples are in long-standing, monogamous relationships. These couples are interested in long-term committed relationships with one other person.

Some have expressed concern that legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to legalizing polygamy or even marriage with animals. Historical data do not support the argument that polygamy is a natural consequence of the legalization of same-sex marriage. New York University’s Judith Stacey and Tey Meadow explored this claim by looking at South Africa (where polygamy is legal) and the United States (where polygamy is illegal). They found that “no predestined link and no unidirectional gradient govern relationships between these two forms of marriage.”

No research suggests that children in same-sex parent households are at risk for future failure in school or work, in relationships or in their own future marriages. Nor is there evidence to suggest they are more likely to be gay. But if they are, they find themselves in more welcoming, accepting households. Research cited in “The Future of Children” (Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Brookings Institution) shows that same-sex couples raise children with positive male and female role models who function well in their own friendships, who do not have confusion with their own sexual identities and who grow up to be socially competent.

William Meezan from Ohio State University and Jonathan Rauch from the Brookings Institution note that legal marriage could be beneficial for children of same-sex families for three reasons. 1) It may increase children’s material well-being through such benefits as reduced taxes, family leave from work, and spousal health insurance eligibility. 2) It may increase the durability and stability of their parents’ relationship. 3) Marriage may bring increased social acceptance of and support for same-sex families (although this benefit will not happen if communities meet same-sex marriage with rejection or hostility).

Existing research findings do not support a rationale for repealing LD1020. The law provides an opportunity for all couples to become legally married with the same rights and responsibilities that are part of the marriage contract.

As well, the possibility does exist that the repeal of LD 1020 could be detrimental to family stability and to the children in same-sex families. This could happen because the repeal of LD1020 would reinforce the perspective that same-sex couples are in some way immoral, unfit or not socially acceptable. LD1020 supports the “time-honored preference for marriage over non-marriage as a context for raising children.”

It is difficult to avoid an emotional debate over this referendum, but relevant research suggests that couples, families and society will be strengthened by the existence of a law like LD1020.

A recent policy brief from UMaine Cooperative Extension and the UMaine Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center addresses these issues. It is available online.

Leslie Forstadt, Ph.D., is a child and family development specialist at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension and a faculty researcher at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center.