Download PDF - Ivie

All of the specifications indicate that same-sex households save more than opposite-sex
ones, after one has controlled for the age, education and other socioeconomic characteristics of each
partner (spouse). Specifically, homosexual couples own on average $5,785 more annual retirement
income than married couples (25 percent more than the average annual retirement income of
married couples) a statistically significant difference. This evidence is consistent with our argument
that homosexuals save more than heterosexual individuals since over their lifetime they have far
fewer children 8 (Browning and Ejrnaes, 2009; Scholz and Seshadri, 2007), and possibly a less
binding relationship, since as of the year 2000 no US state had yet legalized same-sex marriages.
Although married couples own on average more assets than single or divorced individuals
(Browning and Lusardi, 1996), our estimates suggest that they save less than same-sex couples.
In columns 3 and 4 the specifications remain unchanged, but we add heterosexual cohabiting
couples, identified by an additional dummy variable so that the excluded category is married. One
can see evidence of higher savings for cohabiting than married couples (column 4) and that the gap
between same-sex and opposite-sex cohabiting households is even wider (column 3). More
specifically, we find that homosexuals own $3,776 more annual retirement income than the average
heterosexual cohabiting couple (21 percent more than the average annual retirement income of
heterosexual cohabiting couples), who in turn owns $2,442 more annual retirement income than the
average married household (11 percent more than the average annual retirement income of married
couples). These figures illustrate that the lack of legal marriage is not the main factor determining
the disparity by sexual orientation. The evidence indicating that cohabiting couples, regardless of
their sexual orientation, save more than married ones suggests that the absence of a legal tie
encourages these couples to save more (precautionary motive for less stability); however it also
suggests that cohabitation is not the main reason why we find that same-sex households save more
than their heterosexual counterparts, and that other forces must be at play: for instance, fertility. As
8 The Census only reports the number of children living in the household, which does not reflect the actual number of
children of elderly couples, so that our dummy variable for homosexuality would capture this fertility disparity.
19