同性婚姻長期以來為美國所關注之議題，2015年美國聯邦最高法院作成Obergefell v. Hodges判決後，全美各州同性婚姻隨之合法化，我國立法院亦於2019年三讀通過《司法院釋字第七四八號解釋施行法》，同性伴侶已得向戶政機關辦理結婚登記。然而，由於同性配偶與同性伴侶之間無法如異性般生育子女，目前人工生殖科技亦難以讓同性家庭擁有雙方血緣之子女，因此是否能突破血緣連結以建立法律上親子關係，以及離婚或伴侶關係解消後，法院如何在保障子女最佳利益之同時也能平等地酌定親權或會面交往權，皆成為同性家庭親子法制之重要議題。
本文擬研究美國的同婚親子法制變革。首先介紹同性家庭之建立與組成，以美國同性婚姻合法化作為分野，探討同性配偶親職制度之演變，期許能透過梳理美國州法及聯邦模範法典－美國統一親職法（Uniform Parentage Act）之內容，以及重點案例與判決之評析，統整美國同性伴侶親職制度之變化，以作為我國法制參考。最後，將進一步探討同性配偶離婚或同性伴侶關係解消之親權酌定議題，以及在同性婚姻與家庭結構轉變之情境下，美國親子法制與法院判決又是如何因應和修正。
全文共分五章，第一章「緒論」；第二章「法律如何看待同性家庭親子關係之建立」；第三章「全美同婚合法化後之親職制度再造」；第四章「從親權酌定看同婚親子法制的未來趨勢」；第五章「結論」。

Same-sex marriage has long been a focal issue of concern and debate worldwide. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, same-sex marriage became legal across all states in the United States. Similarly, in Taiwan, the Enforcement Act of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748 was passed by the legislator in 2019, allowing same-sex partnership to register their marriage at the household registration office. However, since same-sex couples cannot have children in the same way as opposite-sex couples, and unable to have children with genetic ties to both parents under current assisted reproductive technologies, how to establish parent-child relationship under the law without biological connection becomes a question. Additionally, how the courts equally determine custody or visitation while ensuring the best interests of the child after divorce or separation of same-sex couples has become a significant issue in the legal framework for same-sex family.
The thesis aims to explore the evolution of family law systems for same-sex couples. First, this study introduces the formation and composition of same-sex families. Then, a comprehensive analysis is provided through examining the legal frameworks across various states in the U.S., including Uniform Parentage Act and leading cases. Through the investigation of the transformations in the U.S. family law for same-sex couples, this thesis seeks to serve as a reference for Taiwan legal system. Finally, the issues of determining custody upon the divorce or the separation of same-sex couples will be further explored, including the U.S. family law’s response and adaptation to the changing family structures.
This paper is organized into five chapters, “Introduction”, “Legal Perspectives on Establishing Parent-Child Relations in Same-Sex Families”, “Reconstruction of Parentage after Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.”, “Future Trends in Same-Sex Marriage and Parental Law Systems Through the Lens of Custodial Determinations” and “Conclusion”.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與範圍 3
第三節 研究方法與架構 6
第二章 法律如何看待同性家庭親子關係之建立 8
第一節 同性家庭之組成 8
第一項 家庭內涵之重新定義 8
第二項 同性家庭之組成形態 13
第二節 同婚合法化對於親子關係認定之影響 17
第一項 突破血緣連結迷思 17
第二項 Obergefell v. Hodges及Pavan v. Smith對於親子關係之闡述 23
第三項 婚生推定之適用與困境 28
第三章 全美同婚合法化後之親職制度再造 34
第一節 婚生推定制度之重塑 34
第一項 性別與性傾向之平等保護 34
第二項 意願與功能取向之婚生推定制度：親職的建立與推翻 36
第二節 美國統一親職法（Uniform Parentage Act, UPA）及州法所呈現的親子法制演變 43
第一項 UPA 2017 對於親子關係認定之延伸與擴張 44
第二項 消除具有性別意涵之規範 55
第三項 自願確認親子關係制度 59
第四項 小結－UPA 2017對同性配偶及同性伴侶之意義 65
第四章 從親權酌定看同婚親子法制的未來趨勢 67
第一節 傳統親權酌定適用原則 67
第二節 婚姻關係對親權酌定之影響 72
第一項 同性配偶 73
第二項 同性伴侶 76
第三節 平等家長原則對同性伴侶親職之保障 79
第一項 平等家長原則之緣起與要素 80
第二項 平等家長原則之適用現況 85
第三項 強調意願與實質共同生活 93
第四節 小結 98
第五章 結論 100
參考文獻 103

一、中文部分
（一） 中文書籍
1. 沙依仁，婚姻與家庭，作者自印，1986年。
2. 陳棋炎、黃宗樂、郭振恭，民法親屬新論，三民，修訂十六版，2022年9月。
3. 戴炎輝、戴東雄、戴瑀如，親屬法，元照，2021年10月。
（二） 期刊論文
1. 江崇源，美國加州同性伴侶法制之發展：以2003年「家庭伴侶權利與責任法」為論述重心，東海大學法學研究，第29期，2008年12月，頁87-131。
2. 江崇源，美國佛蒙特州同性伴侶法制之發展：以 2000 年「公民結合法」及 2009 年「婚姻平等法」為論述重心，東海大學法學研究，第38期，2012年12月，頁59-132。
3. 李立如，離婚後親權酌定事件中的子女最佳利益，中原財經法學，45期，2020年12月，頁1-58。
4. 何思瑩，「非法」情境下的酷兒生殖，女學學誌：婦女與性別研究，35期，2014年12月，頁53-122。
5. 陳宜倩，不只是同婚？婦研縱橫，第107期，2017年10月，頁44-59。
（三） 學位論文
1. 王立典，同性家庭子女親權取得之研究，國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文，2015年1月。
2. 陳婕妤，同性家庭收養子女權利之研究，國立成功大學法律學系碩士班碩士論文，2017年6月。
3. 陳思吟，同性家庭親子關係之研究－以我國人工生殖法為探討中心，國立高雄大學法律學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，2020年1月。
4. 王歆惠，論同性婚下人工生殖親子關係－以美國若干州法與我國之比較為中心，國立政治大學法律學系碩士班碩士論文，2020年7月。
（四） 網路資料
1. 臺灣酷家，LGBT與LGBTQ的意思與由來，https://lgbtq.tw/meaning-lgbtq/
二、外文部分
（一）外文書籍
1. Black, James C.＆Cantor, Donald J., Child Custody, Columbia University Press (1989).
2. Goldstein, Joseph, The Best Interests of the Child: The Least Detrimental Alternative, Free Press (1998).
3. Joslin, Courtney G., Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Family Law, Thomson West (2018).
4. Mason, Mary Ann, From Father’s Property to Children’s Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press (1996).
5. Quirion, Pauline Esq. et al., Paternity and the Law of Parentage in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (2009).
6. Wadlington, Walter J. & O’Brien Raymond C., Family Law in Perspective, Foundation Press (2001).
（二）期刊論文
1. Appleton, Susan F., Illegitimacy and Sex, Old and New, 20 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law, 347-384 (2012).
2. Appleton, Frelich, Presuming Women: Revisiting the Presumption of Legitimacy in the Same-Sex Couples Era, 86 Boston University Law Review, 227-294 (2006).
3. Burke, Anna& Hughbanks, Zachary& Myers, Therese K.& Neville, Caroline & Samuelschild, Harry, Custody, Visitation & Termination of Parental Rights, 21 The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 201-251 (2020).
4. Bardzell, Arielle& Bernard, Nicholas, Adoption and Foster Care, 16 The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 3-36(2015).
5. Bowman, Craig A.& Cornish, Blake M., A More Perfect Union: A Legal and Social Analysis of Domestic Partnership Ordinances, 92 Columbia Law Review, 1164-1211 (1992).
6. Ball, Carlos A., Rendering Children Illegitimate in Former Partner Parenting Cases: Hiding Behind the Facade of Certainty, 20 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 623-669 (2012).
7. Bernstein, Gaia, The Socio-Legal Acceptance of New Technologies: A Close Look at Artificial Insemination, 77 Washington Law Review, 1035-1120 (2002).
8. Beekman, Jason C., Same-Sex Second-Parent Adoption and Intestacy Law: Applying the Sharon S. Model of Simultaneous Adoption to Parent-Child Provisions of the Uniform Probate Code, 96 Cornell Law Review, 139-168 (2010).
9. Bohl, Joan C., Same-Sex Divorce in the United States: Protecting the Interests of the Children, 3 University of Miami Race and Social Justice Law Review, 63-90 (2013).
10. Baker, Katharine K., Legitimate Families and Equal Protection, 56 Boston College Law Review, 1647-1695 (2015).
11. Baker, Katharine K., Quacking Like a Duck? Functional Parenthood Doctrine and Same-Sex Parents, 92 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 135-176 (2017).
12. Carbone, June& Cahn, Naomi, Nonmarriage, 76 Maryland Law Review, 55-121 (2016).
13. Carbone, June& Cahn, Naomi, Jane the Virgin and Other Stories of Unintentional Parenthood, 7 UC Irvine Law Review, 511-544. (2017).
14. Coulmont, Baptiste, The Geography of Civil Unions in Vermont, 9 Journal of Lesbian Studies, 183-193 (2005).
15. Carbone, June& Cahn, Naomi, Parents, Babies, and More Parents, 92 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 9-53 (2017).
16. Carbone, June& Cahn, Naomi, The Past, Present and Future of the Marital Presumption, The International Survey of Family Law, 387-398 (2013).
17. D’Ginto, Anna M., The birth certificate solution: Ensuring the interstate recognition of same-sex parentage, 167 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 975-1022 (2019).
18. DiGrazia, Danielle M., Don’t Let the Sun Go Down on Same-Sex Parental Rights: How Relying on Mutual Consent at the Time of Artificial Insemination and Childbirth Can Uphold Legal Parentage of Separated Same-Sex Couples, 68 Villanova Law Review, 331-366 (2023).
19. Duncan, William C., Domestic Partnership Laws in the United States: A Review and Critique, 2001 BYU Law Review, 961-992(2001).
20. Elrod, Linda D., A Child’s Perspective of Defining a Parent: The Case for Intended Parenthood, 25 Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 245-270 (2011).
21. Feinberg, Jessica, Whither the Functional Parent? Revisiting Equitable Parenthood Doctrines in Light of Same-Sex Parents’ Increased Access to Obtaining Formal Legal Parent Status, 83 Brooklyn Law Review, 55-110 (2017).
22. Feinberg, Jessica, Restructuring Rebuttal of the Marital Presumption for the Modern Era, 104 Minnesota Law Review, 243-307 (2019).
23. Feinberg, Jessica, A Logical Step Forward: Extending Voluntary Acknowledgments of Parentage to Female Same Sex Couples, 30 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 99-138 (2018).
24. Feinberg, Jessica, The Boundaries of Multi-Parentage, 75 SMU Law Review, 307-368 (2022).
25. Feinberg, Jessica, Consideration of Genetic Connections in Child Custody Disputes Between Same-Sex Parents: Fair or Foul?, 81 Missouri Law Review, 338-376 (2016).
26. Fein, Marisa S., An Inequitable Means to an Equitable End: Why Current Legal Processes Available to Non-Biological, LGBTQ+ Parents Fail to Live Up to Obergefell v. Hodges, 14 Drexel Law Review, 165-206 (2022).
27. Green, Craig, Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents, 94 The North Carolina Law Review, 379-484 (2016).
28. Grossman, Joanna L., Parentage Without Gender, 17 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 717-747 (2016).
29. Grossman, Joanna L., The New Illegitimacy: Tying Parentage to Marital Status for Lesbian Co-Parents, 20 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 671-720 (2012).
30. Gavin, Meghan M., The Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003: California Extends Significant Protections to Registered Domestic Partners and Their Families, 35 McGeorge Law Review, 482-495 (2004).
31. George, Marie-Ame ́lie, The Custody Crucible: The Development of Scientific Au-thority About Gay and Lesbian Parents, 34 Law & History Review, 487-529 (2016).
32. Glennon, Theresa, Somebody’s Child: Evaluating the Erosion of the Marital Presumption of Paternity, 102 West Virginia Law Review, 547-605 (2000).
33. Glennon, Theresa, Somebody’s Child: Evaluating the Erosion of the Marital Presumption of Paternity, 102 West Virginia Law Review, 547-605 (2000).
34. Haney-Caron, Emily& Heilbrun, Kirk, Lesbian and Gay Parents and Determination of Child Custody: The Changing Legal Landscape and Implications for Policy and Practice, 1 Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 19-29 (2014).
35. Haney-Caron, Emily& Heilbrun, Kirk, Lesbian and Gay Parents and Determination of Child Custody: The Changing Legal Landscape and Implications for Policy and Practice,1 Psychology of Sexual Orientation& Gender Diversity, 19-29 (2014).
36. Hargrove, Steven N., Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining Family in the Work Place, 6 Loyola Consumer Law Review, 49-61 (1994).
37. Harris, Leslie J., Obergefell’s Ambiguous Impact on Legal Parentage, 92 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 55-133 (2017).
38. Higdon, Michael J., Biological Citizenship and the Children of Same-Sex Marriage, 87 George Washington Law Review, 124-171 (2019).
39. Higdon, Michael J., Marginalized Fathers and Demonized Mothers: A Feminist Look at the Reproductive Freedom of Unmarried Men, 66 Alabama Law Review, 507-549 (2015).
40. Hamilton, Vivian, Principles of U.S. Family Law, 75 Fordham Law Review, 31-73 (2006).
41. Henry III, William A., Gay Parents: Under Fire and on the Rise, Time. Hackett Publishing Company, 66-69 (1993).
42. Joslin, Courtney G., The Legal Parentage of Children Born to Same-Sex Couples: Developments in the Law, 39 Family Law Quarterly, 683-705 (2005).
43. Joslin, Courtney G., The Evolution of the American Family, 36 SUMMER-Human Rights, 2-6 (2009).
44. Joslin, Courtney G., Nurturing Parenthood Through the UPA (2017), 127 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 589-613 (2018).
45. Joslin, Courtney G., Preface to the UPA (2017), 52 Family Law Quarterly, 437-469 (2018).
46. Joslin, Courtney G.& NeJaime, Douglas, How Parenthood Functions, 123 Columbia Law Review, 319-433 (2023).
47. Joslin, Courtney G.& NeJaime, Douglas, How Functional Parent Doctrines Function: Findings from an Empirical Study, 35 The Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 589-622 (2023).
48. Joslin, Courtney G., (Not) Just Surrogacy, 109 California Law Review, 401-492 (2021).
49. Joslin, Courtney G., De Facto Parentage and the Modern Family, 40 SPRING-Family Advocate (2018).
50. Johnson, Greg, Civil Union, A Reappraisal, 30 Vermont Law Review, 891-912 (2006).
51. Jacobs, Melanie B., Parental Parity: Intentional Parenthood’s Promise, 64 Buffalo Law Review, 465-498 (2016).
52. Kuhn, Thomas S., Paradigms Lost: How Domestic Partnership Went from Innovation to Injury, 37 N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 291-305 (2013).
53. Lehman, A., Inappropriate Injury: The Case for Barring Consideration of a Parent's Homosexuality in Custody Actions, 44 Family Law Quarterly, 115-133 (2010).
54. Lopez, William M., Artificial Insemination and the Presumption of Parenthood: Traditional Foundations and Modern Applications for Lesbian Mothers, 86 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 897-923 (2011).
55. Lavely, Vanessa A., The Path to Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: Recinciling the Inconsistencies Between Marriage and Adoption Cases, 55 UCLA Law Review, 247-291 (2007).
56. Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela& Blecher-Prigat, Between Function and Form: Towards a Differentiated Model of Functional Parenthood, 20 The George Mason Law Review, 419-483 (2013).
57. Meyer, David D., Parenthood in a Time of Transition: Tensions Between Legal, Biological, and Social Conceptions of Parenthood, 54 The American Journal of Comparative Law, 2101-2120 (2006).
58. Murphy, Jane C., Rules, Responsibility and Commitment to Children: The New Language of Morality in Family Law, 60 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1111-1205 (1999).
59. Matsumura, Kaiponanea T., Reaching Backward While Looking Forward: The Retroactive Effect of California's Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act, 54 UCLA Law Review, 185-234 (2006).
60. McCall, Shawn, Bringing Specificity to Child Custody Provisions in California, 49 Golden Gate University Law Review, 141-168 (2019).
61. Nickerson, Craig, Gender Bias in a Florida Court: “Mr. Mom” v. “The Poster Girl for Working Mothers”, 37 California Western Law Review, 185-216 (2000).
62. NeJaime, Douglas, Marriage Equality and the New Parenthood, 129 Harvard Law Review, 1185-1266 (2016).
63. NeJaime, Douglas, The Family’s Constitution, 32 Constitutional Commentary, 413-448 (2017).
64. NeJaime, Douglas, The Nature of Parenthood, 126 The Yale Law Journal, 2260-2381 (2017).
65. NeJaime, Douglas, Parents in Fact, 91 University of Chicago Law Review, 513-555 (2024).
66. NeJaime, Douglas, The Constitution of Parenthood, 72 Stanford Law Review, 261-380 (2020).
67. Nolan, Laurence C., “Unwed Children” and Their Parents Before the United States Supreme Court from Levy to Michael H.: Unlikely Participants in Constitutional Jurisprudence, 28 Capital University Law Review, 1-10 (1999).
68. O’Brien, Raymond C., Obergefell’s Impact on Functional Families, 66 The Catholic University Law Review, 363-444 (2017).
69. Perone, Angela K., Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Obergefell vs. Hodges Marriage Equality Decision, 2 LGBT Health, 196-199 (2015).
70. Pedersen, Jamie D., The New Uniform Parentage Act of 2017, 40 Parentage and the Modern Family, 16-19 (2018).
71. Palcic, Grace, Presuming Parentage Without the Intent to Parent (and Vice Versa), 14 UC Irvine Law Review, 653-692 (2024).
72. Parness, Jeffrey A., Expanding State Parent Registry Laws, 101 Nebraska Law Review, 684-730 (2023).
73. Parness, Jeffrey A., Irrationalities in Legal Parentage: Gender Identity and Beyond, 51 University of Baltimore Law Review, 353-420 (2022).
74. Polikoff, Nancy D., From Third Parties to Parents: The Case of Lesbian Couples and Their Children, 77 Law& Contemporary Problems, 195-220 (2014).
75. Parness, Jeffrey A., Unnatural Voluntary Parentage Acknowledgments Under the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act, 50 The University of Toledo Law Review, 25-38 (2018).
76. Raba, Karel, Recognition and Enforcement of out-of-State Adoption Decrees under the Full Faith and Credit Clause: The Case of Supplemental Birth Certificates., 15 St. Mary’s Law Journals, 293-340 (2013).
77. Rivera, Rhonda R., Our Straight-Laced Judges: The Legal Position of Homosexual Persons in the United States, 30 Hastings Law Journal, 799-955 (1979).
78. Roane, Richard A., Who Is Parent and Who Is Child in Same-Sex Family? - Legislative and Judicial Issues for LGBT Families Post-Separation, Part II: The U.S. Perspective, 30 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 55-81 (2017).
79. Riggs, Shelley A., Is the Approximation Rule in the Child’s Best Interests?, 43 Family Court Review, 481-493 (2005).
80. Shapiro, Julie, Counting from One: Replacing the Marital Presumption with a Presumption of Sole Parentage, 20 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy& the Law, 509-523 (2012).
81. Strasser, Mark, Presuming Parentage, 25 Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law, 57-91 (2015).
82. Stern, Mark J.& Oehme, Karen& Stern, Nat, A Test to Identify and Remedy Anti-Gay Bias in Child Custody Decisions After Obergefell, 23 UCLA Women’s Journal, 79-100 (2016).
83. Shultz, Marjorie M., Reproductive Technology and Intent-Based Parenthood: An Opportunity for Gender Neutrality, 1990 Wisconsin Law Review, 297-398 (1990).
84. Shkedi, Nicole M., When Harry Met Lawrence: Allowing Gays and Lesbians to Adopt, 35 Seton Hall Law Review, 873-909 (2005).
85. Stern, Nat& Oehme, Karen& Stern Mark J., A Test to Identify and Remedy Anti-Gay Bias in Child Custody Decisions after Obergefell, 23 UCLA Women's Law Journal, 79-100 (2016).
86. Sanders, Steve, Pavan v. Smith: Equality for Gays and Lesbians in Being Married, Not Just in Getting Married, American Constitution Society Supreme Court Review, 161-177 (2017).
87. Sexton, Shannon D., A Custody System Free of Gender Preferences and Consistent with the Best Interests of the Child: Suggestions for a More Protective and Equitable Custody System, 88 Kentucky Law Journal, 761-801 (2000).
88. Sanders, Steve, Pavan v. Smith: Equality for Gays and Lesbians in Being Married, Not Just in Getting Married, ACS Supreme Court Review, 161-177 (2017).
89. Tenuta, Christina M., Can You Really be a Good Role Model to Your Child if You Can’t Braid Her Hair? The Unconstitutionality of Factoring Gender and Sexuality into Custody Determinations, 14 CUNY Law Review, 351-392 (2011).
90. Taylor, Todd, The Cultural Defense and its Irrelevancy in Child Protection Law, 17 Boston College Third World Law Journal, 331-364 (1997).
91. Workman, Camille, Comment, The 2017 Uniform Parentage Act: A Response to the Changing Definition of Family?, 32 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 233-250 (2019).
92. Warshak, Richard A., Parenting by the Clock: The Best-Interest-of-the-Child Standard, Judicial Discretion, and the American Law Institute's “Approximation Rule”, 41 University of Baltimore Law Review, 83-164 (2011).
（三）官方／組織文書
1. Davidson, Jon W., AB 205 (The Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003) and its Impact on Cities, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (2004).
2. Kim, Saskia& Liebert, Drew, A Primer on Civil Unions, Assembly Judiciary Committee California State Legislature (2001).
（四）網路資料
1. American Adoption of Florida, Your Complete Guide to LGBTQ Adoption in Florida, https://www.americanadoptionsofflorida.com/adopt/florida-gay-adoption
2. City of Berkley Employees Domestic Partnership Information Sheet (Mar. 14, 2003), https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1.%20DomesticPartnershipFormsPacket.pdf
3. Examples of Psychological Parent in a sentence, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/psychological-parent
4. Johnson, Chris, Supreme Court rejects challenge to same-sex parents on birth certificates (Dec. 14, 2020), https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/12/14/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-same-sex-parents-on-birth-certificates/
5. Memorandum from Jamie Pedersen, Chair, Uniform Parentage Act Drafting Comm.& Courtney Joslin, Reporter, Uniform Parentage Act Drafting Comm., to Uniform Law Comm’rs, (June 9, 2017), http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/parentage/2017am_parentage_issuesmemo.pdf
6. Movement Advancement Project, Equality Maps: Other Parental Recognition Laws, https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/other_parenting_laws
7. National Center for Lesbian Rights, Legal Recognition of LGBT Families, https://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Legal_Recognition_of_LGBT_Families.pdf
8. Spitzer, Elianna, Obergefell v. Hodges: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impacts (Nov. 19, 2019), https://www.thoughtco.com/obergefell-v-hodges-4774621
9. Scherer, Zachary& Anderson, Lydia, How Do People in Same-Sex Couples Compare to Opposite-Sex Couples? (Apr. 1, 2021), https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/how-people-in-same-sex-couples-compare-to-opposite-sex-couples.html
10. United States Census Bureau, Characteristics of Same-Sex Couple Households: 2005 to Present (Oct. 26, 2023), https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/same-sex-couples/ssc-house-characteristics.html