Gay families more likely to live in poverty than opposite sex families

A recent study published in the Washington Blade reveals that lesbian and gay families are more likely to be living in poverty than opposite sex families (the study did not include bisexual and transgender families because of the limits of the data).

The analysis found that 7 percent of lesbian couples are living below the
poverty line, compared to 4 percent of gay male couples and 5 percent of
opposite-sex couples.

The study also found that after “adjusting for a range
of family characteristics that help explain poverty,” same-sex couples are
“significantly” more likely to be poor than opposite-sex married couples.

Also, the study found that children of gay couples are living in poverty at
a rate that is twice as much as the children of straight married couples.

The Williams Institute compiled the information by looking at the U.S.
Census data from 2000, the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and the
California Health Interview Surveys from 2003 and 2005.

This is a particularly striking finding given that conventional wisdom is the gay families are more affluent, typically because they are less likely to have children. The study busts that myth.

The issue of delivering human services that are inclusive and accessible by these families is even more relevant give that this data is pre-recession. Strengthening the safety net for gay and lesbian families is complicated by multiple factors, including social stigma and bureaucratic limitations.

For example, families that rely on domestic partner benefits for health insurance must pay federal taxes on that benefit because the federal government does not recognize that relationship. That can equal thousands of dollars in taxable "income" for the person receiving the benefit.

However, my experience suggests that gay and lesbian families use the extension of domestic partner benefits to measure an organization's commitment to equality. Another indicator is the inclusion of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in an organizational non-discrimination policy (and practice). A third is the prominence of openly gay staff members. These indicators are part of an informal evaluation someone like myself would use when referring gay and lesbian families for services.

This data is important. If we want to reach all families struggling with the reality of living in poverty in our region, we have to understand who those families are. Developing services that are respectful and inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity is very important.