Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Same-sex marriage laws and demand for mortgage credit

  • Published:
Review of Economics of the Household Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marriage for same-sex couples was only permitted in a limited number of states prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. We exploit panel variation across states prior to the Supreme Court decision to investigate the effect of marriage laws on demand for mortgage credit. Identification relies on the fact that states permitted same-sex marriage at different points in time, often through court order whereby the outcome and timing of ruling was unknown. We estimate that states permitting same-sex marriage experienced a 6–16% increase in same-sex mortgage applications after the policy was implemented. Federal recognition of marriage is associated with a stronger effect than state same-sex marriage prior to the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but the effect of state-recognized marriage is also stronger than anti-discrimination policies in housing. Our findings provide important insight not only to the housing choices of same-sex households but the impact of marriage on all households.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We excluded the last three months of 2014 because applications are not reported under HMDA until they are acted upon. Consequently, some applications submitted toward the end of one calendar year may not be reported until the following year. Between 2004 and 2013, on average 73 percent of applications submitted in December were not acted on until the following calendar year and therefore not reported in the year the application was submitted. Comparable figures for November and October are 31 and 15 percent, respectively.

  2. Homes purchased with cash or with mortgages originated by some small and rural lenders are not covered by HMDA; nevertheless, HMDA provides the most comprehensive demographic information of housing market activity.

  3. Same-sex households are identified in the American Community Survey as households where a husband, wife or unmarried partner reported the same-sex as the reference person.

  4. The FHA microdata set does include marital status but FHA mortgages represents only a share of the mortgage market. We did not limit our analysis to a segment that may not be representative of the entire mortgage market.

  5. Housing values are estimated by adjusting the median value of owner-occupied homes in the 2006–2010 ACS by the state-level repeat-sales house price index (HPI) created by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

  6. According to the Census Bureau, the length of time from authorization to completion of new single-family privately owned residential buildings between 2004 and 2014 ranges between 6.7 and 8.9 months, with multi-family buildings ranging between 12 and 16.7 months.

  7. Because the dependent variable is logged, estimated effects are discussed as percentage changes based on the exponeniated values of the coefficients (i.e., %Δ = (e^β − 1) × 100). To avoid dropping observations with no applications in a given month, we add one to all application counts before taking the natural log in this and all subsequent models.

  8. In the case of California in 2008, the indicator is on for only 5 months and no lagged indicators are included.

  9. The persistence of the estimated effect is further confirmed by a supplementary model (not shown) that includes the number of months since the implementation of same-sex marriage as a variable in addition to the binary policy indicator. The estimated coefficient on the interaction with same-sex applicants is positive but not statistically significant while the estimated coefficient on original policy variable is not substantially changed.

  10. Results from the falsification test are provided upon request.

  11. We model the effect of overturning DOMA as occurring in September 2013 even though the Supreme Court ruling was June 26. The IRS did not issue guidance on federal taxation until August 29 and the Department of Defense did not issue guidance on veterans’ benefits until September 3.

References

  • Adams, S., & Cotti, C. (2008). Drunk driving after the passage of smoking bans in bars. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1288–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, S., Green, R., Rosenblatt, E., Yao, V., & Zhang, J. (2016). Intra-household economic power and gender difference in mortgage signing order. September 26, 2016. Available at SSRN 2616756.

  • Alm, J., Leguizamon, J. S., & Leguizamon, S. (2014). Revisiting the income tax effects of legalizing same‐sex marriages. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2), 263–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor, D. H. (2003). Outsourcing at will: The contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor, D. H., Donohue, III, J. J., & Schwab, S. J. (2006). The costs of wrongful-discharge laws. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badgett, M. V. (2009). The economic value of marriage for same-sex couples. Drake L. Rev., 58, 1081–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badgett, M. V. L., & Mallory, C. (2014). The windsor effect on marriages by same-sex couples. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. December 2014.

  • Census Bureau (2014). American community survey data on same sex couples. http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/ssex-tables-2014.xlsx.

  • Dedman, B. (1988, May 1). Atlanta blacks losing in home loans scramble. Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

  • Dee, T. S. (2008). Forsaking all others? The effects of same‐sex partnership laws on risky sex. The Economic Journal, 118(530), 1055–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillender, M. (2014). The death of marriage? The effects of new forms of legal recognition on marriage rates in the United States. Demography, 51(2), 563–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, A. R. (2014). National trends in public opinion on LGBT rights in the United States. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. November 2014.

  • Friedman, S., Reynolds, A., Scovill, S., Brassier, F. R., Campbell, R., & Ballou, M. (2013). An estimate of housing discrimination against same-sex couples. Available at SSRN 2284243.

  • Gates, G. J., & Brown, T. N. T. (2015). Marriage and same-sex couples after obergefell. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. November 2015.

  • General Accounting Office. (January 2004). Defense of marriage act: Update to prior report. Letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). Washington, DC.

  • Granziera, E., & Kozicki, S. (2002). House price dynamics: Fundamentals and expectations. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2012-12.

  • Hoyt, W. H., & Rosenthal, S. S. (1990). Capital gains taxation and the demand for owner-occupied housing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides, Y. M., & Rosenthal, S. S. (1994). Estimating the consumption and investment demands for housing and their effect on housing tenure status. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(1), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39(3), 435–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same‐sex marriage and negative externalities. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 292–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppel, K. (2007a). Home-ownership among opposite-and same-sex couples in the US. Feminist Economics, 13(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppel, K. (2007b). Married and unmarried, opposite-and same-sex couples: A decomposition of homeownership differences. Journal of Housing Research, 16(1), 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matouschek, N., & Rasul, I. (2008). The economics of the marriage contract: Theories and evidence. Journal of Law and Economics, 51(1), 59–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, C., & Sinai, T. (2007). Housing and behavioral finance. Prepared for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s “Implications of Behavioral Economics on Economic Policy” conference, September 27.

  • Munnell, A. H., Tootell, G. M. B., Browne, L. E., & McEneaney, J. (1996). Mortgage lending in Boston: Interpreting HMDA data. American Economic Review, 18(1), 25–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Realtors® (2015). Home buyer and seller generational trends report 2015.

  • National Association of Realtors® (2016). Field guide to quick real estate statistics.

  • Paciorek, A. (2013). The long and the short of household formation. Working Paper 2013-26. Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board.

  • Rosen, H. S., & Rosen, K. T. (1980). Federal taxes and homeownership: Evidence from time series. The Journal of Political Economy, 88(1), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberger, M.D. (2009). Federal estate tax disadvantages for same-sex couples. The Williams Institute.

  • Trandafir, M. (2015). Legal recognition of same-sex couples and family formation. Demography, 52(1), 113–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2011). A look at the FHA’s evolving market shares by race and ethnicity. U.S. Housing Market Conditions.

  • Voena, A. (2015). Yours, mine, and ours: Do divorce laws affect the intertemporal behavior of married couples? The American Economic Review, 105(8), 2295–2332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The opinions expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Administration. The authors thank Richard K. Green, Silda Nikaj, and William Reeder for invaluable comments and suggestions. Any omissions and errors belong solely to the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC, 20410, USA

    Joshua J. Miller & Kevin A. Park

Authors
  1. Joshua J. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin A. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua J. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, J.J., Park, K.A. Same-sex marriage laws and demand for mortgage credit. Rev Econ Household 16, 229–254 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-016-9356-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-016-9356-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation