This article examines the role of social science in US same-sex marriage (SSM) court cases. The existing literature on the role of social science in courts is inconclusive, with studies suggesting social science exerts influence in some but not all areas of law. The literature on social science in SSM litigation is in its formative stage. This article reviews key SSM cases—including the three SSM trials and recent US Supreme Court cases—and describes how litigants and other interested parties invoked social science to address several key points related to legal recognition of SSM. A review of these cases suggests that social science may have exerted influence in SSM litigation because of the large volume of available evidence, the high level of scientific consensus on key issues, and contextual factors such as shifts in public opinion.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Acker JR. 1990. Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs: the actual and potential contribution of social scientists as amici curiae. Law Hum. Behav. 14:125–42 [Google Scholar]
  2. adams j, Light R. 2015. Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Soc. Sci. Res. 53:300–10 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen D. 2013. High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Rev. Econ. Househ. 11:4635–58 [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersen EA. 2006. Out of the Closets & Into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Badgett MVL. 2009. When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage New York: N.Y. Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Baehr v. Lewin 74 Haw. 530 1993.
  7. Baehr v. Miike 1996 WL 694235 1996.
  8. Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 1972.
  9. Baker v. State 170 Vt. 194 1999.
  10. Ball CA. 2014. Same-Sex Marriage and Children: A Tale of History, Social Science, and Law New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Bernstein M, Taylor V. 2013. Marital discord: understanding the contested place of marriage in the lesbian and gay movement. The Marrying Kind? Debating Same-Sex Marriage within the Lesbian and Gay Movement M Bernstein, V Taylor 1–35 Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
  12. Blumenthal JA. 2002. Law and social science in the twenty-first century. S. Calif. Interdiscip. Law J. 12:1–53 [Google Scholar]
  13. Borgmann CE. 2009. Rethinking judicial deference to legislative fact-finding. Indiana Law J 84:11–56 [Google Scholar]
  14. Box-Steffensmeier JM, Christenson DP, Hitt MP. 2013. Quality over quantity: amici influence and judicial decision making. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:3446–60 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 1954.
  16. Caldeira GA, Wright JR. 1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 82:41109–27 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheng S, Powell B. 2015. Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns: reassessing the effects of same-sex parents. Soc. Sci. Res. 52:615–26 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cherlin AJ. 2004. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. J. Marriage Fam. 66:4848–61 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chesler MA, Sanders J, Kalmuss DS. 1988. Social Science in Court: Mobilizing Experts in the School Desegregation Cases Madison: Univ. Wis. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins PM, Corley PC, Hamner J. 2015. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. Law Soc. Rev. 49:4917–44 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cott NF. 2000. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Cummings SL, NeJaime D. 2009–2010. Lawyering for marriage equality. UCLA Law Rev 57:1235–331 [Google Scholar]
  23. Davis KC. 1942. An approach to problems of evidence in the administrative process. Harvard Law Rev 55:3364–425 [Google Scholar]
  24. DeBoer v. Snyder 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 2014.
  25. Dinno A, Whitney C. 2013. Same sex marriage and the perceived assault on opposite sex marriage. PLOS ONE 8:61–8 [Google Scholar]
  26. Doherty WJ, Kouneski EF, Erickson MF. 1998. Responsible fathering: an overview and conceptual framework. J. Marriage Fam. 60:2277–92 [Google Scholar]
  27. Faigman DL. 1989. To have and have not: assessing the value of social science to the law as science and policy. Emory Law J 38:1005–95 [Google Scholar]
  28. Faigman DL. 2008a. Constitutional Fictions: A Unified Theory of Constitutional Facts Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Faigman DL. 2008b. Scientific realism in constitutional law. Brooklyn Law Rev 73:1067–101 [Google Scholar]
  30. Faigman DL, Monahan J. 2004. Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:1631–59 [Google Scholar]
  31. Falk PJ. 1994. The prevalence of social science in gay rights cases: the synergistic influences of historical context, justificatory citation, and dissemination efforts. Wayne Law Rev 41:1–69 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fiske ST, Borgida E. 2008. Providing expert knowledge in an adversarial context: social cognitive science in employment discrimination cases. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4:1123–48 [Google Scholar]
  33. Franze AJ, Anderson RR. 2015. Record breaking term for amicus curiae in Supreme Court reflects new norm. National Law Journal Aug. 19 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gates GJ. et al. 2012. Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research. Soc. Sci. Res. 41:61350–51 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT, Ginsburg GP, Merlino ML, Dahir V. 2001. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum. Behav. 25:5433–58 [Google Scholar]
  36. George M-A. 2016. The custody crucible: the development of scientific authority about gay and lesbian parents. Law Hist. Rev. 34:487–529 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldberg SB. 2006. Constitutional tipping points: civil rights, social change, and fact-based adjudication. Columbia Law Rev 106:81955–2022 [Google Scholar]
  38. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 440 Mass. 309 2003.
  39. Gorod BJ. 2011. The adversarial myth: appellate court extra-record factfinding. Duke Law J 61:11–79 [Google Scholar]
  40. Grunwald BK. 2013. Suboptimal social science and judicial precedent. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 161:51409–43 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hollingsworth v. Perry 133 S. Ct. 2652 2013.
  42. Hull KE. 2016. The evolution of same-sex marriage politics in the U.S. Introducing the New Sexuality Studies NL Fischer, S Seidman London/New York: Routledge, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hume RJ. 2013. Courthouse Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-Sex Marriage in the States New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  44. In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal. 4th 757 2008.
  45. Kane MD, Elliott TA. 2014. Turning to the courts: a quantitative analysis of the gay and lesbian movement's use of legal mobilization. Sociol. Focus 47:4219–37 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kearney JD, Merrill TW. 2000. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 148:3743–855 [Google Scholar]
  47. Keck TM. 2009. Beyond backlash: assessing the impact of judicial decisions on LGBT rights. Law Soc. Rev. 43:1151–86 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health 289 Conn. 135 2008.
  49. Klarman MJ. 2013. From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Langbein L, Yost MA. 2009. Same-sex marriage and negative externalities. Soc. Sci. Q. 90:2292–308 [Google Scholar]
  51. Larsen AO. 2012. Confronting Supreme Court fact finding. Va. Law Rev. 98:61255–312 [Google Scholar]
  52. Larsen AO. 2014. The trouble with amicus facts. Va. Law Rev. 100:81757–818 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 2003.
  54. Lempert R. 2013. Growing up in law and society: the pulls of policy and methods. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:1–32 [Google Scholar]
  55. Levit N. 2010. Theorizing and litigating the rights of sexual minorities. Columbia J. Gend. Law 19:21–63 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lynch KJ. 2004. Best friends? Supreme Court law clerks on effective amicus curiae briefs. J. Law Politics 20:133–75 [Google Scholar]
  57. Manning WD, Fettro MN, Lamidi E. 2014. Child well-being in same-sex parent families: review of research prepared for American Sociological Association amicus brief. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 33:4485–502 [Google Scholar]
  58. Manning WD, Smock P, Majumdar D. 2004. The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 23:2135–59 [Google Scholar]
  59. Meadow T. 2013. Queer numbers: social science as cultural heterosexism. Social (In)Queery Blog Aug. 14. http://socialinqueery.com/2013/08/14/queer-numbers-social-science-as-cultural-heterosexism [Google Scholar]
  60. Meyer IH. 2003. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol. Bull. 129:5674–97 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mezey SG. 2007. Queers in Court: Gay Rights Law and Public Policy Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  62. Mezey SG. 2009. Gay Families and the Courts: The Quest for Equal Rights Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  63. Monahan J, Walker L. 1986. Social authority: obtaining, evaluating, and establishing social science in law. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 134:3477–517 [Google Scholar]
  64. Monahan J, Walker L. 1988. Social-science research in law: a new paradigm. Am. Psychol. 43:6465–72 [Google Scholar]
  65. Monahan J, Walker L. 1991. Judicial use of social-science research. Law Hum. Behav. 15:6571–84 [Google Scholar]
  66. Monahan J, Walker L. 2014. Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials St. Paul: Foundation, 8th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  67. Moran RF. 2010. What counts as knowledge? A reflection on race, social science, and the law. Law Soc. Rev. 44:3–4515–52 [Google Scholar]
  68. Moynihan DP. 1979. Social science and the courts. Public Interest 54:12–31 [Google Scholar]
  69. Nagin DS, Pepper JV. Comm. Deterrence Death Penal. 2012. Deterrence and the Death Penalty Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  70. NeJaime D. 2011. Winning through losing. Iowa Law Rev 96:941–1012 [Google Scholar]
  71. Nelson RL, Berrey EC, Nielsen LB. 2008. Divergent paths: conflicting conceptions of employment discrimination in law and the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4:103–22 [Google Scholar]
  72. Obergefell v. Hodges 135 S. Ct. 2584 2015.
  73. Parker D. 2013. Policing procedure before substance: reforming judicial review of the factual predicates to legislation. Va. Law Rev. 99:61327–59 [Google Scholar]
  74. Perrin AJ, Cohen PN, Caren N. 2013. Are children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-differences hypothesis. J. Gay Lesbian Mental Health 17:327–36 [Google Scholar]
  75. Perry RM. 2015. Obergefell v. Hodges: same-sex marriage legalized. Rep., Congr. Res. Serv. Washington, DC: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44143.pdf [Google Scholar]
  76. Perry v. Schwarzenegger 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 2010.
  77. Pierceson J. 2005. Courts, Liberalism, and Rights: Gay Law and Politics in the United States and Canada Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Pierceson J. 2013. Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: The Road to the Supreme Court Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  79. Powell B, Quadlin NY, Pizmony-Levy O. 2015. Public opinion, the courts, and same-sex marriage: four lessons learned. Soc. Curr. 2:13–12 [Google Scholar]
  80. Ramsey SH, Kelly RF. 2004. Social science knowledge in family law cases: judicial gate-keeping in the Daubert era. Univ. Miami Law Rev. 59:11–81 [Google Scholar]
  81. Redding R, Reppucci N. 1999. Effects of lawyers' socio-political attitudes on their judgments of social science in legal decision making. Law Hum. Behav. 23:131–54 [Google Scholar]
  82. Regnerus M. 2012. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Soc. Sci. Res. 41:4752–70 [Google Scholar]
  83. Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620 1996.
  84. Rosenberg GN. 2008. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  85. Rosenfeld MJ. 2010. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography 47:3755–75 [Google Scholar]
  86. Rosenfeld MJ. 2015. Revisiting the data from the New Family Structure Study: taking family instability into account. Sociol. Sci. 2:478–501 [Google Scholar]
  87. Rublin A. 2011. The role of social science in judicial decision making: how gay rights advocates can learn from integration and capital punishment case law. Duke J. Gend. Law Policy 19:179–222 [Google Scholar]
  88. Rustad M, Koenig T. 1993. The Supreme Court and junk social science: selective distortion in amicus briefs. N.C. Law Rev. 72:191–162 [Google Scholar]
  89. Saks MJ. 1990. Judicial attention to the way the world works. Iowa Law Rev 75:1011–31 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sherkat DE. 2012. The editorial process and politicized scholarship: Monday morning editorial quarterbacking and a call for scientific vigilance. Soc. Sci. Res. 41:61346–49 [Google Scholar]
  91. Stacey J. 2004. Marital suitors court social science spin-sters: the unwittingly conservative effects of public sociology. Soc. Probl. 51:1131–45 [Google Scholar]
  92. Stambolis-Ruhstorfer M. 2015. The culture of knowledge: constructing “expertise” in legal debates on marriage and kinship for same-sex couples in France and the United States PhD Thesis Univ. Calif. Los Angeles, CA: [Google Scholar]
  93. Stryker R. 1994. Rules, resources, and legitimacy processes: some implications for social conflict, order, and change. Am. J. Sociol. 99:4847–910 [Google Scholar]
  94. U.S. v. Windsor 133 S. Ct. 2675 2013.
  95. Valverde M. 1996. Social facticity and the law: a social expert's eyewitness account of law. Soc. Legal Stud. 5:2201–17 [Google Scholar]
  96. Varnum v. Brien 763 N. W. 2d 862 2009.
  97. Vidmar N, Schuller R. 1989. Juries and expert evidence: social framework testimony. Law Contemp. Probl. 52:4133–76 [Google Scholar]
  98. Walker L, Monahan J. 1987. Social frameworks: a new use of social science in law. Va. Law Rev. 73:3559–98 [Google Scholar]
  99. Watts T. 2015. From Windsor to Obergefell: the struggle for marriage equality continued. Harvard Law Policy Rev 9:S52–86 [Google Scholar]
  100. Yoshino K. 2015. Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial: The Story of Hollingsworth v. Perry New York: Crown [Google Scholar]
  101. Yudof MG. 1978. School desegregation: legal realism, reasoned elaboration, and social science research in the Supreme Court. Law Contemp. Probl. 42:457–110 [Google Scholar]
  102. Zick T. 2003. Constitutional empiricism: quasi-neutral principles and constitutional truths. N.C. Law Rev. 82:115–221 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error