850 Journal of Marriage and Family suggesting that fewer cohabiting unions were distinctions between married and unmarried trial marriages (or that fewer trial marriages same-sex and opposite-sex couples were elimi- were succeeding).In fact,Manning and Smock nated for couples who have lived together for at (2003)reported that among 115 cohabiting least a year.Still,the Supreme Court of Canada working-class and lower middle-class adults ruled in 2002 that when cohabiting partners dis- who were interviewed in depth,none said that solve their unions,they do not have to divide he or she was deciding between marriage and their assets equally,nor can one partner be com- cohabitation at the start of the union.Moreover, pelled to pay maintenance payments to the only 36%of adults in the 2002 United States other,even when children are involved (Nova General Social Survey disagreed with the state- Scotia [Attorney General]v.Walsh,2002).In ment,"It is alright for a couple to live together France,unmarried couples may enter into Civil without intending to get married"(Davis, Solidarity Pacts.which give them most of the Smith,Marsden,2003).And a growing share rights and responsibilities of married couples of births to unmarried women in the United after the pact has existed for 3 years (Daley, States (about 40%in the 1990s)were to cohab- 2000).Several other countries have instituted iting couples(Bumpass Lu,2000).The com- registered partnerships (Lyall,2004). parable share was about 60%in Britain (Ermisch.2001). Canada appears to have entered stage three The Emergence of Same-Sex Marriage (Smock Gupta,2002).Sixty-nine percent of The most recent development in the deinstitu- births to unmarried women were to cohabiting tionalization of marriage is the movement to couples in 1997 and 1998 (Juby,Marcil- legalize same-sex marriage.It became a public Gratton,Le Bourdais,in press).More- issue in the United States in 1993,when the over,the national figures for Canada mask Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a state law substantial provincial variation.In particular, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples the rise in cohabitation has been far greater in violated the Hawaii state constitution (Baehr Quebec than elsewhere in Canada.In 1997 and v.Lewin,1993).Subsequently,Hawaii voters 1998,84%of unmarried women who gave birth passed a state constitutional amendment barring in Quebec were cohabiting (Juby,Marcil- same-sex marriage.In 1996,the United States Gratton,Le Bourdais).And four out of five Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, Quebeckers entering a first union did so by which allowed states to refuse to recognize cohabiting rather than marrying (Le Bourdais same-sex marriages licensed in other states.The Juby,2002).The greater acceptance of cohabi- act's constitutionality has not been tested as of tation in Quebec seems to have a cultural basis. this writing because until recently,no state al- Francophone Quebeckers have substantially lowed same-sex marriages.However,in 2003, higher likelihoods of cohabiting than do the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down English-speaking Quebeckers or Canadians in a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex the other English-speaking provinces (Statistics couples,and same-sex marriage became legal in Canada,1997).Celine Le Bourdais and Nicole May 2004 (although opponents may eventually Marcil-Gratton (1996)argue that Francophone succeed in prohibiting it through a state consti- Quebeckers draw upon a French,rather than tutional amendment).The issue has developed Anglo-Saxon,model of family life.In fact, further in Canada:In the early 2000s,courts in levels of cohabitation in Quebec are similar to British Columbia,Ontario,and Quebec ruled levels in France,whereas levels in English- that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex speaking Canada and in the United States are couples were discriminatory,and it appears more similar to the lower levels in Great Britain likely that the federal government will legalize (Kiernan,2002). gay marriage throughout the nation.Although To be sure,cohabitation is becoming more social conservatives in the United States are institutionalized.In the United States,states and seeking a federal constitutional amendment,I municipalities are moving toward granting co- think it is reasonable to assume that same-sex habiting couples some of the rights and respon- marriage will be allowed in at least some North sibilities that married couples have.Canada American jurisdictions in the future.In Europe, has gone further:Under the Modernization of same-sex marriage has been legalized in Benefits and Obligations Act of 2000,legal Belgium and The Netherlands.suggesting that fewer cohabiting unions were trial marriages (or that fewer trial marriages were succeeding). In fact, Manning and Smock (2003) reported that among 115 cohabiting working-class and lower middle-class adults who were interviewed in depth, none said that he or she was deciding between marriage and cohabitation at the start of the union. Moreover, only 36% of adults in the 2002 United States General Social Survey disagreed with the state￾ment, ‘‘It is alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married’’ (Davis, Smith, & Marsden, 2003). And a growing share of births to unmarried women in the United States (about 40% in the 1990s) were to cohab￾iting couples (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). The com￾parable share was about 60% in Britain (Ermisch, 2001). Canada appears to have entered stage three (Smock & Gupta, 2002). Sixty-nine percent of births to unmarried women were to cohabiting couples in 1997 and 1998 (Juby, Marcil￾Gratton, & Le Bourdais, in press). More￾over, the national figures for Canada mask substantial provincial variation. In particular, the rise in cohabitation has been far greater in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. In 1997 and 1998, 84% of unmarried women who gave birth in Quebec were cohabiting (Juby, Marcil￾Gratton, & Le Bourdais). And four out of five Quebeckers entering a first union did so by cohabiting rather than marrying (Le Bourdais & Juby, 2002). The greater acceptance of cohabi￾tation in Quebec seems to have a cultural basis. Francophone Quebeckers have substantially higher likelihoods of cohabiting than do English-speaking Quebeckers or Canadians in the other English-speaking provinces (Statistics Canada, 1997). Ce´line Le Bourdais and Nicole Marcil-Gratton (1996) argue that Francophone Quebeckers draw upon a French, rather than Anglo-Saxon, model of family life. In fact, levels of cohabitation in Quebec are similar to levels in France, whereas levels in English￾speaking Canada and in the United States are more similar to the lower levels in Great Britain (Kiernan, 2002). To be sure, cohabitation is becoming more institutionalized. In the United States, states and municipalities are moving toward granting co￾habiting couples some of the rights and respon￾sibilities that married couples have. Canada has gone further: Under the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act of 2000, legal distinctions between married and unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples were elimi￾nated for couples who have lived together for at least a year. Still, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2002 that when cohabiting partners dis￾solve their unions, they do not have to divide their assets equally, nor can one partner be com￾pelled to pay maintenance payments to the other, even when children are involved (Nova Scotia [Attorney General] v. Walsh, 2002). In France, unmarried couples may enter into Civil Solidarity Pacts, which give them most of the rights and responsibilities of married couples after the pact has existed for 3 years (Daley, 2000). Several other countries have instituted registered partnerships (Lyall, 2004). The Emergence of Same-Sex Marriage The most recent development in the deinstitu￾tionalization of marriage is the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. It became a public issue in the United States in 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Hawaii state constitution (Baehr v. Lewin, 1993). Subsequently, Hawaii voters passed a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. The act’s constitutionality has not been tested as of this writing because until recently, no state al￾lowed same-sex marriages. However, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and same-sex marriage became legal in May 2004 (although opponents may eventually succeed in prohibiting it through a state consti￾tutional amendment). The issue has developed further in Canada: In the early 2000s, courts in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec ruled that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples were discriminatory, and it appears likely that the federal government will legalize gay marriage throughout the nation. Although social conservatives in the United States are seeking a federal constitutional amendment, I think it is reasonable to assume that same-sex marriage will be allowed in at least some North American jurisdictions in the future. In Europe, same-sex marriage has been legalized in Belgium and The Netherlands. 850 Journal of Marriage and Family