Introduction

Census 2000 enumerated 105.5 million households in

the United States,1

of which the

majority (52 percent) were maintained by married

couples (54.5 million). A reflection

of changing life

styles is mirrored

in Census 2000’s

enumeration of 5.5

million couples

who were living

together but who

were not married,

up from 3.2 million in 1990.2 These

unmarried-partner households were selfidentified on the census form as being

maintained by people who were sharing

living quarters and who also had a close

personal relationship with each other.3

The majority of these unmarried-partner

households had partners of the opposite

sex (4.9 million) but about 1 in 9

(594,000) had partners of the same sex.4

Of these same-sex unmarried-partner

households, 301,000 had male partners

and 293,000 had female partners.

This report presents information from

Census 2000 on the characteristics of the

60 million households maintained by couples (also called coupled households).

These coupled households were assigned

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued February 2003

CENSR-5

Married-Couple and UnmarriedPartner Households: 2000

Census 2000 Special Reports

By 

Tavia Simmons

and

Martin O’Connell

Figure 1.

Reproduction of the Question on Relationship 

to Householder From Census 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.

2.

Husband/wife

Natural-born son/daughter

Adopted son/daughter

Stepson/stepdaughter

Brother/sister

Father/mother

Grandchild

Parent-in-law

Roomer, boarder

Housemate, roommate

Unmarried partner

Foster child

Other nonrelative

If NOT RELATED to Person 1:

Other relative — Print

exact relationship.

How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box. ✗

Son-in-law/daughter-in-law

1 The text of this report discusses data for the

United States, including the 50 states and the

District of Columbia. Data for the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico are shown in Tables 2, 4, 5, and 6 and

Figure 2. 2 Data on unmarried partners from the 1990 census (which were based on data from the sample

form) are not comparable with data from Census

2000 because of changes in the editing procedures.

See www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000

/samesex.html for an explanation of these changes. 3 In contrast, people who were sharing the same

living quarters but were doing so just to share living

expenses were offered the opportunity to identify

themselves as roommates or housemates.

4 Estimating numbers and characteristics of population groups with low probabilities of occurrence

may be affected by even small reporting errors or

incorrect optical reading of some questionnaires during data processing. The analysis of the number of

same-sex couples and their characteristics may be

susceptible to these problems if such errors were

made in the relationship and sex items. For

instance, if an error was made by the household

respondent for the item “What is this person’s sex?,”

an opposite-sex married-couple household could

have been erroneously processed as a same-sex

married-couple household. In this instance, the

household would have most likely been reclassified

as a same-sex unmarried-partner household. For a

further explanation of the editing process, see 

www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000

/samesex.html.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

to 1 of 4 mutually exclusive groups,

depending on the relationship and

gender of the householder and the

spouse or partner: opposite-sex

married couples, opposite-sex

unmarried partners, male same-sex

unmarried partners, and female

same-sex unmarried partners. The

numbers in this report do not show

a complete count of all married couples and unmarried partners but

only of couples and partners where

one person was the householder. If

the household included more than

one couple, the household designation was determined by the status

of the householder. For example, if

a household was maintained by an

unmarried couple but also contained the son of the householder

and the son’s wife, the household

would be tabulated only as an

unmarried-partner household in this

report. 

The information on household type

is derived from the item on the

Census 2000 questionnaire 

(Figure 1) that asked about the relationship of each person in the

household to the person on line 1,

the householder (the person in

whose name the house was owned

or rented). The relationship item,

which has been asked on the census since 1880, provides information about both individuals and the

make-up of families and households. In 1990, the category

“unmarried partner” was added to

the relationship item to measure the

growing complexity of American

households and the tendency for

couples to live together before getting married.5

Unmarried partners are more

likely than married couples to

live in metropolitan areas.

Of the 105.5 million households in

the United States, 84.3 million

were located in metropolitan

areas—32.8 million were within

central cities and 51.6 million were

located in the suburbs6

—while the

remaining 21.2 million were outside metropolitan areas (Table 1).

Among the 60 million coupled

households, 47.2 million were in

metropolitan areas—15.2 million

were in central cities and 32.0 million were in the suburbs—while

the remaining 12.8 million coupled

households were outside metropolitan areas.

Of the four different types of

households maintained by couples,

6 In this report, two terms—suburban

areas and suburbs—are used to designate

that part of the metropolitan area which is

not in the central city. 

Table 1.

Married and Unmarried-Partner Households by Metropolitan Residence Status: 2000

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf)

Household type and sex

of householder

Total

In a metropolitan area Not in a

metropolitan area Total In central city Not in central city

Number

Percent

of all

households Number

Percent

of all

households Number

Percent

of all

households Number

Percent

of all

households

Total households1 . . . . 105,480,101 84,304,885 79.9 32,753,918 31.1 51,550,967 48.9 21,175,216 20.1

Total coupled households2 . 59,969,000 47,214,481 78.7 15,189,744 25.3 32,024,737 53.4 12,754,519 21.3

Married-couple

households ............. 54,493,232 42,757,993 78.5 13,232,903 24.3 29,525,090 54.2 11,735,239 21.5

Male householder ...... 47,449,405 36,968,706 77.9 11,101,326 23.4 25,867,380 54.5 10,480,699 22.1

Female householder . . . . 7,043,827 5,789,287 82.2 2,131,577 30.3 3,657,710 51.9 1,254,540 17.8

Unmarried-partner

households ............. 5,475,768 4,456,488 81.4 1,956,841 35.7 2,499,647 45.6 1,019,280 18.6

Opposite-sex partners. . . 4,881,377 3,949,743 80.9 1,709,317 35.0 2,240,426 45.9 931,634 19.1

Male householder .... 2,615,119 2,083,069 79.7 849,082 32.5 1,233,987 47.2 532,050 20.3

Female householder . . 2,266,258 1,866,674 82.4 860,235 38.0 1,006,439 44.4 399,584 17.6

Same-sex partners ..... 594,391 506,745 85.3 247,524 41.6 259,221 43.6 87,646 14.7

Male householder .... 301,026 259,807 86.3 135,546 45.0 124,261 41.3 41,219 13.7

Female householder . . 293,365 246,938 84.2 111,978 38.2 134,960 46.0 46,427 15.8

1

Total includes other types of households including family and nonfamily households which do not contain either spouses or unmarried

partners. 2

Coupled households represent the total of married-couple and unmarried-partner households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1.

5 For historical estimates of the number

of unmarried partners derived from the

Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,

see www.census.gov/population/socdemo

/hh-fam/tabUC-1.txt. For the results of the

most recent survey, see Jason Fields and

Lynne M. Casper, America’s Families and

Living Arrangements: March 2000. Current

Population Reports, P20-537. U.S. Census

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001. 
married-couple households had the

lowest rate of metropolitan residence (79 percent), while same-sex

unmarried-partner households had

the highest rates: 84 percent of

female same-sex households and

86 percent of male same-sex

households. Opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households had

an intermediate rate of metropolitan residence (81 percent).

Married-couple households were

less likely to be found in central

cities (24 percent) than were

unmarried-partner households (36

percent). Among unmarriedpartner households, opposite-sex

partners were less likely to reside

in central cities (35 percent) than

female same-sex partners (38 percent) or male same-sex partners

(45 percent).

Married-couples and opposite-sex

unmarried partners with female

householders were more likely to

be in metropolitan areas (both 

82 percent) than were their counterparts with male householders

(78 percent and 80 percent,

respectively). Gender differences

in central city residence were even

more apparent: 30 percent and 

38 percent for women compared

with 23 percent and 33 percent,

respectively, for men.7

About 9 percent of coupled

households are unmarriedpartner households.

Nationally, 57 percent of all households in 2000 were coupled households. Table 2 shows that the

West and Midwest had the highest

proportion (58 percent), while the

Northeast had the lowest 

(55 percent).8 Overall, 9 percent of

all coupled households were

unmarried-partner households: the

West had the highest percentage

(10 percent), while the South had

the lowest (8 percent). 

Opposite-sex partners (4.9 million)

constituted the vast majority of the

5.5 million unmarried-partner

households. Nationwide, 594,000

same-sex unmarried-partner households represented 1 percent of all

coupled households. On a comparative basis, the West had the

highest percentage (1.2 percent)

and the Midwest had the lowest

(0.7 percent). Fifty-one percent of

same-sex couples in the South and

the West had male partners, compared with 50 percent in the

Northeast and 49 percent in the

Midwest.

The highest proportion of

coupled households was in

Utah.

Coupled households were most

likely to be found in western states

such as Utah (67 percent of

households in that state), Idaho

(64 percent), and Wyoming 

(60 percent), and in New England

states (New Hampshire at 62 percent, and Vermont and Maine at 

60 percent). Two other states,

Iowa and Alaska, also had 60 percent of their households maintained by couples. New York had

the lowest percentage (52 percent).

Other states with proportions

under 55 percent were

Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Louisiana, and Mississippi (54 percent each). In the District of

Columbia, 29 percent of all households were coupled.

Unmarried-partner households

are least frequently found in

the central United States.

The unmarried-partner category

identifies people with a close and

personal relationship that goes

beyond sharing household expenses. People may live together as an

unmarried couple for a variety of

reasons. For young men and

women, it may be a precursor to

an impending marriage, while for

others it may represent a transitory

or trial relationship. For older couples that have been formerly married, it could represent an alternative lifestyle to the one they

previously experienced, especially

if child bearing and child rearing

activities are not anticipated. 

Interesting geographic patterns

emerge in the proportion of all coupled households maintained by

unmarried partners. Figure 2

shows that counties with aboveaverage proportions of unmarriedpartner households were concentrated in several areas. One

extends from a number of southwestern states up the Pacific coast

and into Alaska. A second large

cluster runs from New York through

New England. Other areas include

the Mississippi Valley and southern

Florida. In general, the counties in

the Great Plains section of the

United States, from west Texas

northwards, were characterized by

below-average proportions of

unmarried-partner households. In a

previous report,9 this area was

U.S. Census Bureau 3

7 On an historical note, the Census

Bureau began listing wives as householders

in married-couple families in surveys and the

census beginning in 1980. Before that time,

husbands were automatically designated as

the householder in married-couple families.

Beginning in 1990 when unmarried-partner

households were first identified, either sex

could be listed as the householder.

8 There are four regions (Northeast,

Midwest, South, and West). The Northeast

includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South

Dakota, and Wisconsin. The South includes

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, the District of

Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West

Virginia. The West includes Alaska, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

9 See Tavia Simmons and Grace O’Neill,

Households and Families: 2000. Census

2000 Brief, Series C2KBR/01-8. U.S. Census

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households for the United States, Regions, States,

and for Puerto Rico: 2000

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf)

Area

Total

households

Married-couple and unmarried-partner households

Total coupled

households1

Marriedcouple

households

Total unmarriedpartner householdsOpposite-sex

unmarried partners

Same-sex unmarried partners

Number

Percent

of all

households

Total Sex of partners

Number

Percent of

coupled

households Number

Percent of

coupled

householdsNumber

Percent of

coupled

households

Male

partnersFemale

partners

United

States ..... 105,480,101 59,969,000 56.9 54,493,232 5,475,768 9.1 4,881,377 8.1 594,391 1.0 301,026 293,365

Region

Northeast ..... 20,285,622 11,205,641 55.2 10,127,653 1,077,988 9.6 958,742 8.6 119,246 1.1 59,328 59,918

Midwest....... 24,734,532 14,222,533 57.5 12,963,564 1,258,969 8.9 1,153,219 8.1 105,750 0.7 52,142 53,608

South......... 38,015,214 21,549,582 56.7 19,740,328 1,809,254 8.4 1,599,512 7.4 209,742 1.0 107,636 102,106

West . . . . . . . . . 22,444,733 12,991,244 57.9 11,661,687 1,329,557 10.2 1,169,904 9.0 159,653 1.2 81,920 77,733

State

Alabama ...... 1,737,080 965,453 55.6 906,916 58,537 6.1 50,428 5.2 8,109 0.8 3,980 4,129

Alaska ........ 221,600 132,886 60.0 116,318 16,568 12.5 15,388 11.6 1,180 0.9 483 697

Arizona ....... 1,901,327 1,104,499 58.1 986,303 118,196 10.7 105,864 9.6 12,332 1.1 6,278 6,054

Arkansas ...... 1,042,696 606,944 58.2 566,401 40,543 6.7 36,120 6.0 4,423 0.7 2,176 2,247

California...... 11,502,870 6,560,600 57.0 5,877,084 683,516 10.4 591,378 9.0 92,138 1.4 49,614 42,524

Colorado ...... 1,658,238 949,895 57.3 858,671 91,224 9.6 81,179 8.5 10,045 1.1 4,640 5,405

Connecticut.... 1,301,670 745,340 57.3 676,467 68,873 9.2 61,487 8.2 7,386 1.0 3,559 3,827

Delaware...... 298,736 171,434 57.4 153,136 18,298 10.7 16,430 9.6 1,868 1.1 979 889

District of

Columbia .... 248,338 71,517 28.8 56,631 14,886 20.8 11,208 15.7 3,678 5.1 2,693 985

Florida ........ 6,337,929 3,561,888 56.2 3,192,266 369,622 10.4 328,574 9.2 41,048 1.2 22,988 18,060

Georgia ....... 3,006,369 1,694,543 56.4 1,548,800 145,743 8.6 126,455 7.5 19,288 1.1 10,251 9,037

Hawaii ........ 403,240 239,593 59.4 216,077 23,516 9.8 21,127 8.8 2,389 1.0 1,234 1,155

Idaho ......... 469,645 299,075 63.7 276,511 22,564 7.5 20,691 6.9 1,873 0.6 902 971

Illinois ........ 4,591,779 2,573,438 56.0 2,353,892 219,546 8.5 196,659 7.6 22,887 0.9 12,155 10,732

Indiana ....... 2,336,306 1,376,309 58.9 1,251,458 124,851 9.1 114,632 8.3 10,219 0.7 5,054 5,165

Iowa.......... 1,149,276 690,076 60.0 633,254 56,822 8.2 53,124 7.7 3,698 0.5 1,789 1,909

Kansas ....... 1,037,891 610,223 58.8 567,924 42,299 6.9 38,326 6.3 3,973 0.7 1,888 2,085

Kentucky ...... 1,590,647 929,210 58.4 857,944 71,266 7.7 64,152 6.9 7,114 0.8 3,310 3,804

Louisiana...... 1,656,053 893,061 53.9 809,498 83,563 9.4 74,755 8.4 8,808 1.0 4,180 4,628

Maine......... 518,200 310,033 59.8 272,152 37,881 12.2 34,487 11.1 3,394 1.1 1,493 1,901

Maryland ...... 1,980,859 1,104,884 55.8 994,549 110,335 10.0 99,092 9.0 11,243 1.0 5,230 6,013

Massachusetts . 2,443,580 1,328,836 54.4 1,197,917 130,919 9.9 113,820 8.6 17,099 1.3 7,943 9,156

Michigan ...... 3,785,661 2,149,930 56.8 1,947,710 202,220 9.4 186,852 8.7 15,368 0.7 7,293 8,075

Minnesota ..... 1,895,127 1,118,603 59.0 1,018,245 100,358 9.0 91,211 8.2 9,147 0.8 4,290 4,857

Mississippi..... 1,046,434 567,582 54.2 520,844 46,738 8.2 41,964 7.4 4,774 0.8 2,251 2,523

Missouri....... 2,194,594 1,251,876 57.0 1,140,866 111,010 8.9 101,582 8.1 9,428 0.8 4,684 4,744

Montana ...... 358,667 210,008 58.6 192,067 17,941 8.5 16,723 8.0 1,218 0.6 554 664

Nebraska...... 666,184 390,533 58.6 360,996 29,537 7.6 27,205 7.0 2,332 0.6 1,112 1,220

Nevada ....... 751,165 427,103 56.9 373,201 53,902 12.6 48,929 11.5 4,973 1.2 2,739 2,234

New

Hampshire . . . 474,606 294,998 62.2 262,438 32,560 11.0 29,857 10.1 2,703 0.9 1,156 1,547

New Jersey.... 3,064,645 1,789,640 58.4 1,638,322 151,318 8.5 134,714 7.5 16,604 0.9 8,257 8,347

New Mexico . . . 677,971 385,360 56.8 341,818 43,542 11.3 39,046 10.1 4,496 1.2 1,901 2,595

New York. . . . . . 7,056,860 3,667,070 52.0 3,289,514 377,556 10.3 331,066 9.0 46,490 1.3 24,494 21,996

North Carolina . 3,132,013 1,789,026 57.1 1,645,346 143,680 8.0 127,482 7.1 16,198 0.9 7,849 8,349

North Dakota . . 257,152 148,812 57.9 137,433 11,379 7.6 10,676 7.2 703 0.5 360 343

Ohio.......... 4,445,773 2,514,887 56.6 2,285,798 229,089 9.1 210,152 8.4 18,937 0.8 9,266 9,671

Oklahoma ..... 1,342,293 770,918 57.4 717,611 53,307 6.9 47,544 6.2 5,763 0.7 2,811 2,952

Oregon ....... 1,333,723 777,166 58.3 692,532 84,634 10.9 75,702 9.7 8,932 1.1 3,846 5,086

Pennsylvania . . 4,777,003 2,705,295 56.6 2,467,673 237,622 8.8 216,456 8.0 21,166 0.8 10,492 10,674

Rhode Island . . 408,424 219,937 53.9 196,757 23,180 10.5 20,709 9.4 2,471 1.1 1,172 1,299

South Carolina . 1,533,854 853,564 55.6 783,142 70,422 8.3 62,813 7.4 7,609 0.9 3,561 4,048

South Dakota . . 290,245 171,282 59.0 157,391 13,891 8.1 13,065 7.6 826 0.5 389 437

Tennessee .... 2,232,905 1,267,908 56.8 1,173,960 93,948 7.4 83,759 6.6 10,189 0.8 5,090 5,099

Texas......... 7,393,354 4,316,987 58.4 3,989,741 327,246 7.6 284,334 6.6 42,912 1.0 21,740 21,172

Utah.......... 701,281 467,035 66.6 442,931 24,104 5.2 20,734 4.4 3,370 0.7 1,665 1,705

Vermont....... 240,634 144,492 60.0 126,413 18,079 12.5 16,146 11.2 1,933 1.3 762 1,171

Virginia ....... 2,699,173 1,552,409 57.5 1,426,044 126,365 8.1 112,563 7.3 13,802 0.9 7,053 6,749

Washington . . . 2,271,398 1,321,464 58.2 1,181,995 139,469 10.6 123,569 9.4 15,900 1.2 7,652 8,248

West Virginia. . . 736,481 432,254 58.7 397,499 34,755 8.0 31,839 7.4 2,916 0.7 1,494 1,422

Wisconsin ..... 2,084,544 1,226,564 58.8 1,108,597 117,967 9.6 109,735 8.9 8,232 0.7 3,862 4,370

Wyoming ...... 193,608 116,560 60.2 106,179 10,381 8.9 9,574 8.2 807 0.7 412 395

Puerto Rico ..... 1,261,325 723,042 57.3 682,804 40,238 5.6 33,420 4.6 6,818 0.9 3,122 3,696

1

Coupled households represent total of married-couple and unmarried-partner households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau

5

11.0 to 20.89.1 to 10.98.0 to 9.05.2 to 7.9

Percentage of UnmarriedPartner Households: 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SummaryFile 1. American Factfinder at factfinder.census.govprovides census data and mapping tools.

Percent unmarriedpartner householdsby state

15.4 to 26.89.1 to 15.37.9 to 9.05.6 to 7.80.0 to 5.5

U.S. percent 9.1

U.S. percent 9.1

(Percent based on all coupled households. For information onconfidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions,see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf) 

Figure 2.

0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Percent unmarriedpartner householdsby county
6 U.S. Census Bureau

found to have above-average proportions of households consisting

of married couples. 

Compared with a nationwide ratio

of 1 in 11, approximately 1 out of

every 8 coupled households in

Nevada, Alaska, Vermont, and

Maine was an unmarried-partner

household. In the District of

Columbia, the ratio was 1 out of 5.

States with the lowest percentages

of unmarried-partner households

included Utah (5 percent) and

Alabama (6 percent). Puerto Rico

also had a low percentage of

unmarried-partner households 

(6 percent).

Since marriage patterns and living

arrangements differ by racial and

ethnic groups, geographic patterns

of the proportions of unmarriedpartner households may emerge if

an area has a high proportion of a

specific population group. For

example, Figure 2 shows that

although the majority of counties in

the Great Plains had below-average

proportions of unmarried-partner

households, high proportions were

recorded for several counties in

South Dakota that are geographically coincidental with American Indian

reservations.10 Similarly, aboveaverage proportions of unmarried

couples were found in the

Mississippi Valley, where aboveaverage proportions of the population reported a single race of

Black.11

Figure 3 illustrates the wide range

of differences in the proportion of

unmarried-partner households to

all coupled households by race and 

Figure 3.

Unmarried-Partner Households by Sex of Partners and Race and 

Hispanic Origin of Householder: 2000

Note: Percent same-sex partners and percent opposite-sex partners may not add to total percent unmarried-partner households 

because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 2.

Same-sex partners

Opposite-sex partners

(Percent of all coupled households. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/docs/sf1.pdf)

White alone, not

Hispanic or Latino

Hispanic or Latino

(of any race)

Two or more races

Some other race alone

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander alone

Asian alone

American Indian and

Alaska Native alone

Black or African

American alone

White alone 8.2

8.1

12.2

13.7

13.6

12.3

4.7

17.4

16.9

7.2

0.9 7.3

1.4 15.5

1.3 16.0

0.7 4.0

1.4 10.8

1.2 12.4

1.6 12.1

1.3 10.9

0.9

11 Census 2000 allowed respondents to

choose more than one race. In this report, the

“alone” category refers to people who indicated one race among the six primary categories:

White, Black or African American, American

Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Some

other race. The “alone” category is used for all

of the racial groups in this report except for

the Two or more race category. The use of the

alone population in this section does not

imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. In general, either

the alone population or the alone or in combination population can be used, depending on

the purpose of the analysis. The Census

Bureau uses both approaches.

10 A visual representation of the population by race and ethnicity at the county level

can be found in Cynthia A. Brewer and Trudy

A. Suchan, Mapping Census 2000: The

Geography of U.S. Diversity. Census Special

Reports, Series CENSR/01-1. U.S. Census

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

ethnicity.12 In 2000, about 

17 percent of coupled households

for those reporting a single race of

American Indian and Alaska Native

or of Black were unmarried-partner

households. The Hispanic13 population, which is concentrated in the

southwest and California, also

recorded above-average proportions of unmarried-partner households (12 percent). However, none

of these groups is particularly concentrated in the Pacific Northwest

or the New England states, which

also have high proportions of

unmarried-partner households,

suggesting that explanations must

be found elsewhere. The lowest

proportion shown in Figure 3 was

for those reporting a single race of

Asian (5 percent).

California contained 1 out of

every 8 unmarried-partner

households in the country. 

California, which had 11 percent of

all households, had more unmarried-partner households than any

other state: 684,000, or 12 percent

of the 5.5 million total. Of these,

591,000 were opposite-sex and

92,000 were same-sex couples,

representing 12 percent and 

16 percent, respectively, of these

types of households in the nation.

The majority (54 percent) of the

same-sex couples in California had

male partners.

States which had the highest percentage of opposite-sex unmarried

partners of all coupled households

were Alaska (12 percent), followed

by Maine, Vermont, and Nevada

(11 percent each). States, which

had the lowest percentage were

Utah (4.4 percent) and Alabama

(5.2 percent). 

Among the states, the highest percentage of same-sex unmarried

partners of all coupled households

was in California, with 1.4 percent,

closely followed by Massachusetts,

Vermont, and New York, with 

1.3 percent. The lowest proportion was found in Iowa, South

Dakota, and North Dakota (0.5 percent). The District of Columbia

recorded relatively high percentages for both types of unmarriedpartner households: 16 percent of

its coupled households were composed of opposite-sex partners and

5 percent of same-sex partners. 

Nationally, 51 percent of the samesex couples had male partners.

States that had the lowest proportions included Vermont (39 percent) and Alaska (41 percent).

Other states under the 45-percent

level were geographically dispersed from New Hampshire 

(43 percent) and Maine (44 percent) in New England, to New

Mexico (42 percent) in the

Southwest and Oregon (43 percent)

in the Pacific Northwest. Only two

states had higher proportions of

male partners than California 

(54 percent)—Florida (56 percent)

and Nevada (55 percent). Seventythree percent of the same-sex couples in the District of Columbia

had male partners.

Married-couple households

are often found in rapidly

growing suburban

communities.

Table 3 shows that, as a percentage of all types of households in

an area, the ten places with the

highest percentage of married-couple households were most likely to

be found in rapidly growing areas

outside of large cities, such as

Gilbert, Arizona, which is near

Phoenix; Naperville, Illinois, which

is outside of Chicago; and Plano,

Texas, which is close to Dallas.14

Five of the ten highest-ranked

places were in California. These

findings are consistent with overall

national statistics that show that

the majority of married-couple

households were in suburban areas

of the United States (Table 1).

The three places with the highest

percentage of households with

opposite-sex unmarried partners

were in the older industrial areas

of the Northeast: Paterson, New

Jersey; Manchester, New

Hampshire; and Rochester, New

York. However, two rapidly growing places in Nevada (Sunrise

Manor and Spring Valley) also

made the list.

In contrast, the highest percentage

of households with same-sex

unmarried partners were found in

larger coastal cities such as San

Francisco, California; Ft.

Lauderdale, Florida; and Seattle,

Washington. Four of these top ten

places are in California, while only

one is located in the Midwest

(Minneapolis, Minnesota). 

12 Because Hispanics may be of any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap with

data for racial groups. Based on Census

2000 100 percent data, the proportion

Hispanic was 8.0 percent for the White alone

population, 2.0 percent for the Black alone

population, 16.4 percent for the American

Indian and Alaska Native alone population,

1.2 percent for the Asian alone population,

11.4 percent for the Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacific Islander alone population, 97.0

percent for the Some other race alone population, and 32.6 percent for the Two or more

races population. 13 The terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” may

be used interchangeably to reflect the new

terminology in the standards issued by the

Office of Management and Budget in 1997

that are to be implemented by January 1,

2003.

14 Gilbert, Arizona, was the fastest growing city between 1990 and 2000 of cities

with 100,000 or more people in 2000. Two

other cities in Table 3 were also ranked

among the top ten fastest growing: Plano,

Texas (number 8) and Corona, California

(number 9). Naperville, Illinois, along with

Fontana, California, and Laredo, Texas, were

also in the top 20 fastest growing cities. See

U.S. Census Bureau, County and City Data

Book: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,

DC, 2002, Table C-1, for a list of these cities.
Female householders are

found most frequently in the

Northeast.

Research has shown that oppositesex unmarried partners tend to

share household activities more

equally than married couples.15

This role-sharing behavior may

also be reflected in the decision of

whom to designate as the householder—the man or the woman.

These differences in householder

designation are revealed in 

Table 4—only 13 percent of

married-couple households had a

female householder, but nearly half

(46 percent) of all opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households did.

Regionally, the Northeast had the

highest and the Midwest had the

lowest percentage of householders

who were women for marriedcouples (15 percent and 11 percent, respectively), while the

Northeast had the highest percentage and the West had the lowest

for unmarried-partner households 

(48 percent and 45 percent,

respectively).

The highest percentage of marriedcouple households with female

householders was recorded in New

8 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of Married-Couple

and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf)

Types of household and area Total

households,

all types

Specified type of household

Number

Percent of all

households

MARRIED-COUPLE HOUSEHOLD

Gilbert, AZ..................................................... 35,405 24,613 69.5

Naperville, IL .................................................. 43,751 30,256 69.2

Plano, TX . . ................................................... 80,875 52,029 64.3

Simi Valley, CA . . . ............................................. 36,421 23,258 63.9

Corona, CA.................................................... 37,839 24,156 63.8

Livonia, MI .................................................... 38,089 23,938 62.8

Fremont, CA................................................... 68,237 42,757 62.7

Fontana, CA ................................................... 34,014 21,273 62.5

Thousand Oaks, CA ............................................ 41,793 26,063 62.4

Laredo, TX .................................................... 46,852 29,054 62.0

UNMARRIED-PARTNER HOUSEHOLD

Opposite-sex partners

Paterson, NJ................................................... 44,710 3,602 8.1

Manchester, NH................................................ 44,247 3,498 7.9

Rochester, NY ................................................. 88,999 6,817 7.7

Sunrise Manor, NV* ............................................ 53,745 4,071 7.6

Allentown, PA.................................................. 42,032 3,139 7.5

San Bernardino, CA ............................................ 56,330 4,193 7.4

Spring Valley, NV*.............................................. 47,965 3,546 7.4

Hartford, CT ................................................... 44,986 3,320 7.4

Lansing, MI. ................................................... 49,505 3,630 7.3

Green Bay, WI ................................................. 41,591 3,040 7.3

Same-sex partners

San Francisco, CA . . ........................................... 329,700 8,902 2.7

Fort Lauderdale, FL ............................................ 68,468 1,418 2.1

Seattle, WA.................................................... 258,499 4,965 1.9

Oakland, CA................................................... 150,790 2,650 1.8

Berkeley, CA. . ................................................. 44,955 788 1.8

Atlanta, GA .................................................... 168,147 2,833 1.7

Minneapolis, MN ............................................... 162,352 2,622 1.6

Washington, DC................................................ 248,338 3,678 1.5

Long Beach, CA ............................................... 163,088 2,266 1.4

Portland, OR................................................... 223,737 3,017 1.3

*Sunrise Manor, NV, and Spring Valley, NV, are census designated places and are not legally incorporated.

Note: Census 2000 shows 245 places in the United States with 100,000 or more population. They include 238 incorporated places

(including 4 city-county consolidations) and 7 census designated places (CDPs) that are not legally incorporated. For a list of these places

by states, see www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t6/tab04.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1.

15 For a discussion of the changing roles

of spouses and partners in married-couple

and unmarried-partner households, see

Lynne M. Casper and Suzanne M. Bianchi,

Continuity and Change in the American

Family (Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,

CA, 2002), Chapter 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 4.

Selected Household and Family Characteristics of Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner

Households for the United States, Regions, States, and for Puerto Rico: 2000

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf)

Area

Percent of

householders female Percent of households with children under 18 years

Marriedcouple

households

Oppositesex unmarriedpartner

households

Marriedcouple

households1

Unmarried-partner households

Opposite-sex partners Male partners Female partners

Own

children1

Own

and/or

unrelated

children2 Own

children1

Own

and/or

unrelated

children2 Own

children1

Own

and/or

unrelated

children2

United States 12.9 46.4 45.6 38.9 43.1 21.8 22.3 32.7 34.3

Region

Northeast ..................... 15.4 48.4 45.2 37.4 40.9 21.3 21.7 31.2 32.6

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 45.8 45.1 38.7 43.9 22.3 22.9 32.8 34.7

South ........................ 12.6 46.7 44.4 39.7 44.0 22.1 23.9 34.4 36.1

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 45.0 48.5 39.2 42.7 20.6 21.1 31.5 33.1

State

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 48.2 43.1 41.6 46.1 27.8 28.3 36.8 38.1

Alaska ........................ 15.0 43.8 54.4 40.6 45.1 36.2 37.1 37.0 38.6

Arizona ....................... 12.7 44.6 43.5 40.5 44.3 22.5 23.0 33.1 35.0

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 44.4 41.9 41.8 47.6 26.1 26.7 36.2 38.2

California...................... 14.0 45.3 50.9 41.4 44.4 19.6 20.2 32.8 34.3

Colorado ...................... 13.8 45.7 47.2 31.3 34.6 19.9 20.5 26.1 27.8

Connecticut .................... 17.2 50.7 45.4 35.6 38.7 21.9 22.2 30.2 31.6

Delaware...................... 14.5 48.6 42.8 39.9 44.1 18.4 18.9 29.4 31.8

District of Columbia.............. 24.9 56.6 36.6 31.8 32.8 4.8 5.0 23.4 24.5

Florida........................ 14.4 46.5 38.1 35.5 39.2 17.4 17.8 29.3 31.0

Georgia ....................... 14.1 48.9 47.3 42.2 46.1 21.1 21.6 34.4 36.2

Hawaii ........................ 13.9 45.2 44.8 35.8 39.0 20.7 21.3 30.6 32.6

Idaho......................... 10.0 42.3 47.8 37.6 43.0 30.3 30.8 35.7 37.9

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 46.2 47.3 38.3 42.5 23.5 24.0 35.6 37.0

Indiana ....................... 10.3 44.0 44.4 40.5 47.0 22.8 23.5 33.6 36.3

Iowa ......................... 10.0 44.6 43.4 37.5 43.0 24.9 25.4 33.8 35.5

Kansas ....................... 10.1 44.8 45.9 39.1 44.1 28.3 29.0 36.5 38.1

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 46.1 43.7 40.1 46.0 23.5 24.4 33.0 34.9

Louisiana...................... 12.1 47.7 46.2 44.4 48.5 25.9 26.3 38.5 39.8

Maine ........................ 15.1 45.2 41.4 35.7 40.9 18.7 19.0 25.2 27.1

Maryland ...................... 15.0 49.5 46.4 38.1 42.1 23.3 24.0 31.7 33.3

Massachusetts ................. 16.6 49.8 45.8 32.8 35.9 18.1 18.6 27.7 29.0

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 46.9 44.8 40.1 45.3 22.8 23.6 33.2 35.3

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 45.7 46.9 35.4 40.2 17.2 17.9 26.8 28.5

Mississippi..................... 12.2 48.9 45.0 49.2 53.4 30.7 31.1 42.0 43.8

Missouri....................... 10.3 45.5 43.6 39.9 45.7 20.9 21.5 31.7 33.7

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 44.0 42.9 35.1 39.3 28.7 29.6 34.2 35.5

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 44.6 45.9 36.4 41.5 24.7 25.7 32.7 34.4

Nevada ....................... 13.9 41.9 44.5 36.1 40.2 24.7 25.3 35.4 37.5

New Hampshire ................ 15.3 43.7 45.9 33.0 38.1 22.3 22.9 27.2 29.0

New Jersey .................... 14.7 48.0 47.4 38.1 40.9 25.4 25.8 33.6 34.7

New Mexico ................... 12.0 44.2 46.1 48.4 51.7 27.4 27.9 31.0 32.2

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 50.1 46.4 39.2 42.2 21.3 21.7 33.1 34.3

North Carolina.................. 12.3 46.1 43.0 38.4 42.9 25.2 25.9 33.3 34.7

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 43.0 45.1 36.9 41.5 21.4 21.7 34.4 34.7

Ohio ......................... 12.4 46.9 43.6 40.2 45.3 20.9 21.6 31.8 34.0

Oklahoma ..................... 10.6 45.1 43.4 42.1 47.2 26.7 27.3 35.0 36.9

Oregon ....................... 13.7 45.6 42.8 33.9 38.4 18.9 19.5 26.3 28.1

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 45.6 42.3 38.5 42.8 20.9 21.3 31.5 33.2

Rhode Island................... 16.6 50.4 43.6 37.1 40.1 20.5 20.6 27.3 28.6

South Carolina ................. 14.2 47.8 42.6 41.9 45.7 26.8 27.2 37.1 38.8

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 44.2 45.2 42.1 47.4 33.2 33.9 41.4 42.3

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 46.3 42.5 39.1 44.3 23.9 24.7 33.4 35.4

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 45.2 50.2 42.9 46.8 26.7 27.3 39.2 40.9

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 41.9 55.5 42.2 47.2 29.7 30.2 40.6 42.3

Vermont ...................... 16.5 46.2 44.2 33.8 38.3 19.9 20.6 26.7 28.9

Virginia ....................... 12.6 46.5 45.3 35.0 39.6 19.8 20.3 31.2 32.7

Washington .................... 13.3 45.9 45.8 35.1 39.7 18.1 18.6 26.7 28.2

West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 43.7 39.5 40.2 45.6 27.6 27.9 34.9 36.4

Wisconsin ..................... 10.5 45.4 44.5 34.9 40.5 21.7 22.4 30.6 32.4

Wyoming...................... 10.9 41.2 44.3 36.0 41.8 28.2 29.9 35.7 37.5

Puerto Rico ..................... 14.1 54.4 49.4 56.5 56.7 39.2 39.2 42.2 42.5

1

Refers to own sons/daughters of the householder.

2

Refers to own sons/daughters of the householder and other children not related to the householder.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1; and Census 2000, special tabulation.
York (18 percent). In all the states

in New England, at least 15 percent of married couples had female

householders. Only two states,

North Dakota and Utah, had less

than 9 percent. In the District of

Columbia, one-quarter of married

couples had female householders.

In Connecticut, 51 percent of

opposite-sex unmarried partners

had female householders, followed

by New York (50 percent). The

state with the lowest percentage

was Wyoming (41 percent). The

District of Columbia (57 percent)

and Puerto Rico (54 percent) also

had a relatively high percentage.

Almost one-half of marriedcouple households include

children under 18 years.

Nationally, 46 percent of marriedcouple households had at least one

son or daughter living in the household (defined as an “own child” of

the householder).16 The West had

the highest percentage with children (49 percent), while the South

had the lowest (44 percent). Four

states had at least 50 percent: Utah

(56 percent), Alaska (54 percent),

California (51 percent), and Texas

(50 percent). The state with the

lowest percentage was Florida (38

percent), likely a reflection of its

older age distribution. 

Four out of ten opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households

have children present.

The identification of the partner’s

own children in an unmarriedpartner household is complicated

when the child of the partner is

not the biological child of the

householder, because the Census

2000 questionnaire recorded only

each person’s relationship to the

householder. In circumstances

where the child of the partner was

not related to the householder, an

actual family unit may not be identified in the tabulation. To address

this issue, Table 4 includes data

that attempt to capture the presence of the partners’ children in

unmarried-partner households.

Using this expanded child-defined

universe, the percentage of children present in opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households

increases from 39 percent—counting only own children—to 43 percent—including both own and/or

unrelated children under 18.

Similar but smaller increases of 1

or 2 percentage points are noted

for same-sex couples.

The South had the highest

percentage of opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households

with their own children.

Among opposite-sex unmarriedpartner households, the South had

the highest percentage with their

own children (40 percent), while

the Northeast had the lowest 

(37 percent). Among the states,

Colorado had the lowest percentage (31 percent), while Mississippi

had the highest (49 percent).

Although married-couple households were more likely to contain

own children of the householder

than were opposite-sex unmarriedpartner households, households in

three states (Mississippi, New

Mexico, and West Virginia) were

more likely to contain their own

children in unmarried-partner

households. In Puerto Rico, 

57 percent of all opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households contained own children of the householder, 7 percentage points more

than for married-couple households.17

One-third of female partner

households and one-fifth of

male partner households

contain children.

Nationally, 33 percent of female

same-sex householders were living

with their sons and daughters

under 18 years old.18 The South

had the highest percentage with

own children under 18 years of

age (34 percent), while the

Northeast had the lowest (31 percent). In three states, 40 percent

or more of these households had

at least one own child living in the

household (Mississippi, South

Dakota, and Utah).

Overall, 22 percent of male samesex householders had their own

children present in the household.

The percentage with own children

ranged from 17 percent in Florida

and Minnesota to 36 percent in

Alaska. Other states where 30 percent or more of male same-sex

households had own children present were South Dakota (33 percent), Mississippi (31 percent), and

Idaho and Utah (30 percent each).

10 U.S. Census Bureau

16 In this report, an “own child” of the

householder includes any child under the

age of 18 who is a biological, adopted, or

stepchild of the householder. 

17 In 2000, both Mississippi and New

Mexico had the highest percentage of children born out of wedlock of all states (46

percent, compared with the national average

of 33 percent), while the corresponding percentage for Puerto Rico was 50 percent.

This could possibly account for the relatively

high proportions of unmarried-partner

households with children in these states.

See Joyce A. Martin, et al., Births: Final Data

for 2000. National Vital Statistics Reports,

Vol. 50, No. 5. National Center for Health

Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 2002, Table 19. 18 The proportions of same-sex unmarried-partner households with children shown

in this report may be too high because of

the possible inclusion of opposite-sex couples who had erred in marking their sex on

the questionnaire or by incorrect optical

reading of some questionnaires during data

processing. However, research has indicated

that sex was reported with extremely high

consistency levels when subsequent reinterviews were made.
What circumstances may influence

inter-state variations in the presence of children in same-sex

unmarried-partner households?

Factors could include not only

geographical differences in fertility

patterns of previously married

partners before they entered a

same-sex relationship, but also

state laws related to child custody

placements in cases of marital dissolution—which determine who

retains custody of the child—and

to adoption by same-sex couples. 

Data from Census 2000 illustrate

the variety of living arrangements

of households with children: while

the vast majority of households

containing own children were

married-couple households (24.8

million), over 2 million households

included own children whose parents were living in nontraditional

arrangements (1.9 million

opposite-sex unmarried partners,

96,000 female partners, and

66,000 male partners). 

Interracial couples are most

prevalent in the West. 

Nationally, in 6 percent of marriedcouple households, the householder and the spouse were of different

races (Table 5).19 Three to five percent of married couples in the

Midwest, the Northeast, and the

South had spouses of different

races, compared with 11 percent in

the West. The highest proportion

was found in Hawaii (35 percent),

followed by Alaska and Oklahoma

(about 15 percent). Because these

states have high proportions of

native populations (for example,

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islanders, and American Indian and

Alaska Natives, respectively), these

states may have a greater potential

for the likelihood of inter-marriage. 

Unmarried-partner households consistently had higher percentages of

partners of different races at the

national and regional levels, and in

individual states than did marriedcouple households.20 Nationally,

these percentages ranged from 

10 percent for female unmarried

partners to 12 percent for

opposite-sex unmarried partners. 

For opposite-sex unmarried-partner

households, the West recorded the

highest percentage of mixed-race

partnerships (19 percent), and the

Midwest the lowest (9 percent).

Over one-half (56 percent) of these

households in Hawaii had partners

of different races, followed by

Alaska (26 percent) and Oklahoma

(25 percent).

The New England states of Maine,

New Hampshire, and Vermont,

which have very high proportions

of people who reported the single

race of White, had the lowest proportions of different race partnerships for all four household types

(around 5 percent or less). Two

other states (Mississippi and West

Virginia) also had comparatively

low percentages for all four household types.

Three percent of marriedcouple households have one

Hispanic and one nonHispanic partner.

Nationally, 3 percent of married

couples had only one Hispanic

partner and the other partner not

of Hispanic origin, compared with

about 6 percent of unmarried partners (Table 5). Similar to the geographic pattern noted for interracial partners, the highest

percentages of Hispanic/nonHispanic partner households for all

four types of households were

found in the West. The West also

had the highest portion of

Hispanics (24 percent) in its total

population.21 New Mexico had the

highest percentage of households

having only one Hispanic partner,

more than 10 percent for each

household type. West Virginia had

the lowest proportions, with 1 percent or less for each household

type.

The last four columns of Table 5

present the data for the 14 possible race/Hispanic-origin combinations, which generate 196 possible

combinations per couple.22

Overall, 7 percent of married couples had spouses of a different

race or origin. Percentages for

opposite-sex and male same-sex

households were about 15 percent,

compared with 13 percent for

female same-sex households.

Couples in Hawaii experienced the

greatest diversity: the percentages

of partners of a different race or

origin for all four household types

in Hawaii were more than 3 times

the national average, ranging from

U.S. Census Bureau 11

19 The seven race groups used in this

report were White alone; Black or African

American alone; American Indian and Alaska

Native alone; Asian alone; Native Hawaiian

and Other Pacific Islander alone; Some other

race alone; and Two or more races. If either

spouse or partner was not in the same single race as the other spouse or partner, or if

at least one spouse or partner was in a

multiple-race group, then the couple was

classified as an interracial couple (see

Census 2000, PHC-T-19, Hispanic Origin and

Race of Coupled Households: 2000, for

detailed tabulations).

20 Research has indicated that since

unmarried-partner relationships often tend

to be short-term or trial relationships, the

partners may be less likely to choose partners with the same characteristics, such as

race or ethnicity, than married couples. The

higher proportions of mixed-race couples

found among unmarried partners in Census

2000 than among married couples is consistent with this research. See Robert Schoen

and Robin M. Weinick, “Partner Choice in

Marriages and Cohabitations.” Journal of

Marriage and Family, Vol. 55, No. 2 (1993),

pp. 408-414.

21 For Census 2000 distributions of the

population by Hispanic or Latino origin, see

Betsy Guzman, The Hispanic Population:

2000. Census 2000 Brief, Series C2KBR/01-

3. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC,

2001. 22 Since the race and Hispanic origin

groups overlap, the combined percentages

are always less than the sum of the individual percentages for each household type

shown in Table 5.
12 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5.

Selected Race and Hispanic Origin Characteristics of Married-Couple and UnmarriedPartner Households for the United States, Regions, States, and for Puerto Rico: 2000

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf)

Area

Percent of households

with partners of different races

Percent of households with only

one partner of Hispanic origin

Percent of housholds with partners of

different races or origins

Marriedcouple

households

Unmarried-partner

households

Marriedcouple

households

Unmarried-partner

households

Marriedcouple

households

Unmarried-partner

households

Oppositesex partners

Same-sex

partners

Oppositesex partners

Same-sex

partners

Oppositesex partners

Same-sex

partners

Male

partners

Female

partners

Male

partners

Female

partners

Male

partners Female

partners

United States ........ 5.7 12.2 11.5 10.0 3.1 6.4 6.9 5.4 7.4 15.0 15.3 12.6

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 10.3 10.7 8.5 2.1 5.2 5.9 4.3 5.7 12.8 14.2 10.8

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 9.4 8.2 7.4 1.7 4.0 3.8 3.0 4.5 11.2 10.3 8.9

South. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 10.3 8.7 8.0 2.7 5.2 5.8 4.3 6.5 12.8 12.4 10.3

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 19.3 17.7 15.7 6.1 11.2 11.1 9.2 13.7 23.7 23.2 19.7

State

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 6.7 4.5 4.6 0.9 1.9 1.5 1.2 3.3 7.5 5.4 5.3

Alaska ................ 15.4 26.0 17.4 19.4 3.6 4.9 5.4 6.0 17.1 27.7 19.3 22.1

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 15.7 12.2 13.0 6.6 12.3 10.7 10.3 11.5 20.9 17.7 17.6

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 8.4 6.1 6.5 1.2 2.7 2.1 1.8 4.2 9.6 7.0 7.4

California .............. 12.0 21.0 19.8 17.3 7.2 12.7 12.8 10.5 15.6 26.0 26.2 21.8

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 15.0 13.6 11.6 6.2 11.5 11.5 9.1 11.2 20.1 19.5 15.6

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 11.8 8.4 8.1 2.3 6.6 5.2 3.9 5.7 14.6 11.6 10.2

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 10.5 9.8 7.1 1.7 3.9 4.0 3.5 5.1 12.2 12.5 9.0

District of Columbia . . . . . . 7.8 10.4 16.0 13.3 2.9 3.9 9.4 4.1 9.6 12.6 22.5 15.0

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 10.4 8.6 8.4 4.1 7.3 8.5 6.7 8.3 14.9 15.0 12.8

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 8.2 7.6 6.4 1.6 3.1 3.8 2.6 4.6 9.5 10.0 7.8

Hawaii ................ 34.7 55.6 43.8 40.9 6.2 12.6 7.9 8.9 36.1 57.6 46.1 42.3

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 11.0 8.0 8.1 3.0 6.7 4.9 5.4 6.8 13.8 10.4 10.2

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 10.0 11.0 8.6 2.6 5.7 6.7 4.3 5.8 12.6 14.7 10.8

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 8.2 5.8 6.0 1.5 3.4 2.5 2.3 3.8 9.7 7.4 7.1

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 7.7 5.5 6.4 1.2 3.6 2.2 2.7 3.0 9.2 6.8 8.0

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 14.5 8.4 9.2 2.8 6.9 3.7 4.2 6.8 17.1 10.2 11.1

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 7.3 4.6 5.6 0.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.8 8.1 5.7 6.4

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 7.2 6.5 5.2 1.8 2.9 3.7 2.9 4.5 8.8 8.8 6.9

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 4.9 4.2 4.0 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.5 2.8 5.6 5.4 4.9

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 9.6 9.7 8.6 1.9 2.9 3.5 3.2 6.3 11.0 11.9 10.6

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . 4.1 10.3 9.9 8.1 1.5 4.4 4.6 3.5 5.1 12.3 12.7 9.9

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 9.7 8.5 7.4 1.8 4.2 3.5 2.8 5.2 11.7 10.4 8.7

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 10.6 9.1 8.0 1.2 3.3 3.4 2.6 4.1 12.0 10.8 8.9

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 5.1 3.7 3.2 0.8 1.5 1.7 1.1 2.6 5.8 4.8 3.8

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 8.8 7.3 7.5 1.4 2.7 2.7 2.9 4.3 10.0 8.9 9.1

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 11.2 8.8 8.4 1.9 4.3 4.0 3.3 6.4 13.3 11.6 10.5

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 11.2 5.7 8.3 2.0 5.9 3.1 4.4 4.4 13.5 7.3 10.5

Nevada ............... 10.9 18.9 14.9 15.2 6.2 10.7 9.1 8.3 14.3 23.7 19.5 19.2

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . 2.6 5.2 5.3 4.2 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 3.3 6.3 6.7 5.4

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 12.0 11.2 8.8 3.1 7.5 6.6 5.2 7.2 15.8 14.9 11.7

New Mexico............ 10.8 18.6 15.8 16.4 11.2 18.4 17.6 14.7 16.9 26.3 25.4 23.2

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 12.3 13.7 10.9 3.0 6.7 8.0 6.0 7.6 15.6 18.4 14.1

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 9.6 6.9 6.5 1.4 3.0 2.1 2.2 4.3 10.7 8.0 7.5

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 9.3 4.4 6.4 0.8 2.3 0.6 1.7 3.6 10.4 4.7 7.6

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 8.5 6.9 6.7 1.2 2.9 2.4 2.0 3.6 9.8 8.4 7.7

Oklahoma ............. 14.8 24.6 17.6 18.2 2.6 5.8 3.3 4.5 16.0 26.5 18.8 19.9

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 14.1 12.4 11.7 3.0 6.4 5.6 4.6 8.9 16.7 15.0 13.5

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 7.5 7.1 5.6 1.1 3.2 3.1 2.2 3.1 8.9 8.8 6.8

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 11.1 9.0 8.0 1.5 4.3 3.9 2.8 5.2 13.0 10.6 9.6

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . 2.9 7.3 5.4 4.8 1.1 2.3 1.4 1.7 3.5 8.3 6.2 5.7

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 10.9 5.7 7.3 1.0 2.8 1.8 0.9 4.1 12.1 6.7 7.6

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 7.4 5.2 5.7 1.0 2.2 1.8 1.8 3.3 8.4 6.3 6.6

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 14.1 11.5 10.7 5.4 11.2 10.7 8.0 9.8 19.0 17.4 14.6

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 14.6 9.2 9.6 3.8 10.0 6.4 6.5 7.3 18.8 12.5 12.8

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 0.9 1.4 1.7 0.9 3.2 5.5 5.9 5.2

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 11.3 10.4 8.3 2.1 3.6 4.2 3.5 6.5 12.9 12.8 10.1

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 17.3 14.8 13.6 3.2 6.6 5.9 5.4 10.8 19.8 17.6 16.1

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 5.6 3.6 3.2 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.9 2.2 6.1 4.4 3.8

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 8.7 7.2 6.8 1.4 3.9 3.3 3.0 3.7 10.4 8.9 8.2

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 10.8 7.5 7.6 4.0 8.7 5.6 5.8 7.4 14.9 10.7 10.9

Puerto Rico ............. 12.5 18.5 13.7 13.8 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 13.5 19.7 14.7 15.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, special tabulation from Summary File 1.
36 percent for married-couple

households to 58 percent for

opposite-sex partner households.

Overall, the western region of the

United States exhibited the greatest diversity in couples’ living

arrangements. It had both the

highest percentage of its coupled

households composed of unmarried partners (Table 2) and also the

highest percentage of either married-couple or unmarried-partner

households with partners not of

the same race or origin.

Partners in opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households

are 12 years younger, on

average, than partners in

married-couple households. 

Living together is often a precursor

to marriage among young couples

in contemporary America.23 Table

6 shows that the average ages of

the partners in opposite-sex

unmarried-partner households,

many of whom will ultimately

marry each other, were about 12

years younger than that of their

married-couple counterparts.24

Nationally, the average age of husbands was 49 years old, 2.4 years

older than their wives. Oppositesex partners, while younger, were

only slightly closer in age—on

average, male partners were 

36.8 years old, 2.1 years older

than their female partners.

Overall, married couples who lived

in the Northeast were the oldest

while those in the West were the

youngest. Among the individual

states, the oldest husbands and

wives were in Florida (53 years

and 50 years, respectively), while

the youngest lived in Alaska and

Utah (about 46 years and 43 years,

respectively). 

On average, the youngest opposite-sex partners lived in the

Midwest. The Great Plains states

of Kansas, Nebraska, South

Dakota, and North Dakota, on

average, tended to have both partners below 35 years of age. While

the lowest average ages for both

partners were in Utah (34 years for

men and 32 years for women),

Florida had the oldest opposite-sex

partners (39 years and 37 years).25

The average age of same-sex partners was in their early forties,

intermediate between that of married-couples and opposite-sex partners. In male unmarried-partner

households, the householder was

about 2 years older, while in

female unmarried-partner households, the householder was slightly more than 1 year older. The

average age of same-sex partners

was lowest in the West and highest

in the Northeast for both types of

households.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Data on households and families

from the Census 2000 Summary

File 1 were released in 2001 and

are available on the Internet via

factfinder.census.gov and for purchase on DVD. One can also investigate household and family data

from other Census Bureau surveys

like the American Community

Survey, the Current Population

Survey, and the Survey of Income

and Program Participation, and

access recently released reports

related to the topic, by going to

www.census.gov.

For information on confidentiality

protection, nonsampling error, and

definitions, see www.census.gov

/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf or contact our Customer Services Center

at 301-763-INFO (4636).

Information on other population

and housing topics is presented in

the Census 2000 Brief Series, located on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Web

site at www.census.gov/population

/www/cen2000/briefs.html. This

series presents information about

race, Hispanic origin, age, sex,

household type, housing tenure,

and other social, economic, and

housing characteristics.

For more information about

Census 2000, including data products, call our Customer Services

Center at 301-763-INFO (4636) or

e-mail webmaster@census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau 13

23 For a discussion of the transition from

cohabitation to marriage, see Wendy D.

Manning and Pamela J. Smock, “Why Marry?

Race and the Transition to Marriage Among

Cohabitors,” Demography, Vol. 32, No. 4

(November 1995), pp. 509-520; and Larry L.

Bumpass and Hsien-Hen Lu, “Trends in

Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s

Family Contexts in the United States,”

Population Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (March

2000), pp. 29-41. 24 These averages refer only to those couples who are the householder and spouse or

partner, and do not include those couples

who may be in subfamilies or other living

arrangements within the household.

25 The ages of spouses and partners

reflect the overall age composition of the

population in each state. Utah had the

youngest population in the United States in

2000, while Florida had the second oldest

population. See Julie Meyer, Age: 2000.

Census 2000 Brief, Series C2KBR/01-12.

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 6.

Average Age in Years of Householder and Partner in Married-Couple and UnmarriedPartner Households for the United States, Regions, States, and for Puerto Rico: 2000

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf)

Area

Married-couple households

Unmarried-partner households

Opposite-sex partners Male partners Female partners

Age of

husband

Age of

wife

Age of male

partner

Age of

female

partner

Age of

householder

Age of

partner

Age of

householder

Age of

partner

United States . . . 49.0 46.6 36.8 34.7 44.5 42.4 43.4 42.2

Region

Northeast.......... 50.0 47.5 37.8 35.5 45.2 43.3 44.3 43.2

Midwest . . . ........ 49.2 46.8 35.8 33.7 44.8 42.8 43.1 42.0

South ............. 48.8 46.3 36.8 34.7 44.5 42.5 43.4 42.1

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4 45.9 37.1 35.2 43.9 41.5 42.7 41.6

State

Alabama .......... 48.8 46.2 36.5 34.3 46.8 44.6 45.0 43.6

Alaska ............ 45.5 43.0 36.9 34.6 43.9 41.7 40.8 39.9

Arizona . . ......... 49.8 47.3 37.0 35.1 43.5 41.3 42.7 41.5

Arkansas .......... 49.3 46.6 36.3 34.0 46.2 44.5 44.8 43.3

California. . ........ 48.2 45.6 37.6 35.6 44.0 41.5 42.9 41.7

Colorado .......... 47.4 45.2 35.5 33.7 41.9 39.9 41.3 40.2

Connecticut........ 50.1 47.7 37.6 35.5 45.7 44.0 44.4 43.5

Delaware.......... 49.7 47.4 37.2 35.1 45.4 43.1 43.7 42.7

District of Columbia. 50.8 48.0 38.6 36.2 42.4 39.8 42.4 41.3

Florida ............ 52.5 49.6 39.2 36.9 46.1 44.0 45.1 43.8

Georgia ........... 47.1 44.7 35.8 33.8 41.8 40.1 41.7 40.4

Hawaii ............ 50.6 47.8 38.5 36.2 47.9 45.0 46.6 44.8

Idaho . . ........... 48.1 45.6 36.1 34.0 46.4 43.9 43.5 42.4

Illinois............. 48.7 46.3 36.5 34.4 43.8 41.6 42.9 41.8

Indiana............ 48.7 46.4 35.5 33.4 44.5 42.4 42.4 41.3

Iowa .............. 50.0 47.8 34.8 32.8 46.7 44.7 43.6 42.5

Kansas............ 48.8 46.6 34.5 32.5 44.4 42.4 42.8 41.6

Kentucky .......... 48.1 45.6 35.9 33.6 45.7 43.6 43.8 42.3

Louisiana.......... 48.5 45.9 36.7 34.2 45.5 43.1 44.2 42.5

Maine............. 50.2 47.8 37.2 34.8 46.4 44.9 43.5 42.7

Maryland . . ........ 49.0 46.6 37.8 35.6 44.6 42.7 42.8 41.6

Massachusetts ..... 49.7 47.4 37.3 35.2 44.4 42.7 43.4 42.6

Michigan .......... 49.3 46.9 36.2 34.0 45.5 43.5 43.9 42.6

Minnesota ......... 48.9 46.6 35.5 33.5 44.0 42.0 42.7 41.5

Mississippi......... 48.5 45.9 36.6 34.2 46.8 44.6 44.7 43.3

Missouri........... 49.4 47.0 36.1 33.9 45.2 43.3 42.6 41.5

Montana .......... 50.2 47.5 36.4 34.1 46.2 44.1 45.2 44.1

Nebraska.......... 49.2 47.0 34.6 32.6 45.7 43.5 44.1 43.0

Nevada . .......... 48.5 45.7 38.2 36.1 42.9 40.8 42.2 40.6

New Hampshire . . . . 49.0 46.7 37.3 35.1 45.2 43.8 43.7 42.6

New Jersey........ 49.6 47.1 38.7 36.4 45.3 43.5 44.5 43.3

New Mexico ....... 49.2 46.7 36.3 34.4 45.2 42.9 43.8 42.8

New York. . . . . . . . . . 49.9 47.2 38.3 35.9 44.7 42.6 44.4 43.1

North Carolina . . . . . 48.2 45.9 35.6 33.6 43.9 42.2 43.2 42.0

North Dakota ...... 50.0 47.5 33.9 31.7 52.3 50.5 47.2 46.4

Ohio .............. 49.4 47.1 35.8 33.7 45.2 43.3 43.5 42.3

Oklahoma . . . ...... 48.9 46.4 35.5 33.4 45.2 43.1 43.2 41.8

Oregon............ 49.6 47.1 36.9 34.9 44.9 42.5 42.5 41.7

Pennsylvania ...... 50.6 48.3 37.3 35.0 46.8 44.9 45.2 44.0

Rhode Island ...... 50.2 47.8 36.8 34.6 44.9 43.2 43.5 42.6

South Carolina ..... 48.9 46.5 36.2 34.1 45.7 43.7 44.2 42.9

South Dakota ...... 49.9 47.5 35.0 32.6 46.7 45.1 44.4 42.6

Tennessee......... 48.4 45.9 36.4 34.2 44.8 42.7 43.1 41.8

Texas ............. 47.1 44.6 35.6 33.6 42.9 40.6 42.1 40.6

Utah .............. 45.5 43.2 34.2 32.1 41.7 39.6 41.5 40.0

Vermont........... 49.9 47.4 37.4 35.0 45.7 43.9 43.8 43.1

Virginia............ 48.4 46.0 36.5 34.5 44.5 42.5 43.3 42.0

Washington........ 48.6 46.2 36.6 34.7 43.3 41.2 42.3 41.3

West Virginia ...... 50.0 47.2 36.9 34.4 47.8 45.5 46.0 44.3

Wisconsin ......... 49.5 47.2 35.6 33.5 44.7 43.0 42.8 42.0

Wyoming . . ........ 49.0 46.5 36.4 34.1 48.2 45.6 44.1 42.9

Puerto Rico ......... 48.2 45.1 40.9 38.5 47.4 45.4 47.4 45.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, special tabulation from Summary File 1.