U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

American Community Survey Reports

Remarriage in the United States

By Jamie M. Lewis and Rose M. Kreider

Issued March 2015

ACS-30

INTRODUCTION

The context of marriage in the United States involves 

not only whether and when Americans choose to marry, 

but also how many times they marry. The majority of 

recent marriages are first marriages for both spouses. 

However, divorce rates are higher in the United States 

compared with European nations,1 and remarried adults 

have a higher likelihood of divorce than those in their 

first marriage.2

In 2008, a series of marital history questions were 

added to the American Community Survey (ACS). These 

items, shown in Figure 1, construct a history of marriage, divorce, and widowhood among respondents 

by recording: (1) whether adults had married, been 

widowed, or divorced in the past year; (2) how many 

times adults had married; and (3) the year adults most 

recently married. One of the strengths of ACS data is 

that estimates are available for sub-state geographic 

areas. Further, the ACS provides marital history data 

on adults of all ages whether they reside in households 

or group quarters. This report provides information on 

the following topics: (1) basic marital history measures by sex and age, (2) characteristics of adults by 

how many times they had married, (3) marital history 

information by sex and birth cohort, (4) the proportion 

of couples that include spouses who had married more 

than once, and (5) geographic variation in the percentage of adults who had married two or more times. In 

particular, it provides a look at both states and metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with relatively high or 

low proportions of men or women who had married at 

1 See Gunnar Andersson, “Dissolution of Unions in Europe: A 

Comparative Overview,” MPIDR Working Paper, WP 2003-004, Max 

Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, 2003. 2 See Diana B. Elliott and Tavia Simmons, “Marital Events of

Americans: 2009,” American Community Survey Reports, ACS-13,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2011.

least twice. This report, which uses 5-year data from 

the 2008–2012 ACS,3 presents the first detailed profile 

of this group provided with this level of geographic 

detail. Previously, marital history data were collected 

only in the Survey of Income and Program Participation 

(SIPP) and smaller ACS samples, which are too small to 

provide estimates at the MSA level. 

3 See section on Source of the Data for background information on 

the 5-year ACS data and its interpretation.

Figure 1. 

American Community Survey Questions 

on Marital History

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey, 

Form ACS-1(2012) KFI. 
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Some highlights of the report are:

•	 About half of all men (50 percent) and women (54 percent) 

aged 15 and over had married 

only once.

•	 The proportion of adults that 

had married only once has 

decreased since 1996, from

54 percent to 50 percent of men 

and 60 percent to 54 percent

of women.

•	 Between 1996 and 2008–2012, 

the share of those that had married twice or three or more times 

increased only for women aged 

50 and older and men aged 60 

and older.

•	 Non-Hispanic White men and 

women are most likely to have 

married three or more times, 

while Asian men and women are 

least likely.4

•	 Those with at least a bachelor’s 

degree are more likely to have 

married only once (64 percent) 

than all adults (52 percent).

•	 The majority of recent marriages 

(58 percent) are first marriages 

for both spouses, although 21 

percent involve both spouses 

marrying for at least the second 

time.

•	 States with a lower share of evermarried adults who had remarried are concentrated in the 

Northeast and Midwest, while 

Southern and Western states 

generally have a higher share.

•	 Lake Havasu City-Kingman,

Arizona and Prescott, Arizona 

are among the MSAs with the 

highest percentage of evermarried adults who had remarried, with about 40 percent or 

more.

4 Individuals who responded to the question on race by indicating only one race are 

referred to as the race-alone population or 

the group that reported only one race category. This report will refer to the White-alone 

population as White, the Black-alone population as Black, the Asian-alone population as 

Asian, and the White-alone, non-Hispanic 

population as non-Hispanic White unless 

otherwise noted.

HOW MANY MEN AND 

WOMEN HAD MARRIED 

MORE THAN ONCE?

Table 1 provides a look at some 

basic measures of marital history by age and sex. A majority of 

adults aged 15 and over had ever 

married: two-thirds of men and

72 percent of women. Marital history does differ somewhat by sex, 

as women tend to marry earlier 

than men. For example, about 18 

percent of women aged 20 to 24 

had ever married, compared with 

11 percent of men. Marital history is also shown for various age 

groups since it varies throughout 

the life course. For example, we 

would not expect many teens to 

be married. Indeed, when looking at older age groups, who have 

had more time to marry, we see 

that more had done so. For all age 

groups of women aged 30 and 

over, the majority had married, as 

had the majority of men aged 30 

and over. Thus, despite concerns of 

a “retreat from marriage,”5 this life 

event continues to be pursued and 

achieved by most in America. 

Although most Americans marry, 

they do not necessarily remain in 

a particular marriage for life. In 

addition to reviewing whether men 

and women ever marry, information on the number of times they 

marry and whether they are still in 

a particular marriage is important. 

About half of all adults aged 15 and 

over had married once: 50 percent 

of men and 54 percent of women 

(Table 1). There were 40 percent of 

men and 37 percent of women still 

in their first marriage, 13 percent 

of men and 14 percent of women 

had married twice, and 4 percent 

5 See, for example, Daniel T. Lichter

et al., “Race and the Retreat from Marriage: 

A Shortage of Marriageable Men?” American 

Sociological Review, 57(6):781–799, 1992; 

and Robert Schoen and Yen-Hsin Alice Cheng, 

“Partner Choice and the Differential Retreat 

from Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and

Family, 68(1):1–10, 2006.

had married three or more times.6

Age is an important factor relating 

to remarriage, as older individuals have had more time to see a 

previous marriage conclude and 

to remarry. The proportion of men 

and women married twice is about 

20 percent or higher for men and 

women aged 50 to 69. 

Comparing the data in Table 1 to 

previous reports sheds light on 

patterns of marital history over 

time. Previous census reports 

describe data from the 1996, 

2001, and 2009 SIPP.7 Here, we 

compare 2008–2012 ACS data 

against 1996 SIPP data to look at 

changes in marital history over 

a substantial length of time.8

Between 1996 and 2008–2012, 

the proportion of adults who had 

never married increased, from 31 

percent to 34 percent for men and 

from 24 percent to 28 percent for 

6 The estimates for men and women differ 

statistically. 7 See Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, 

“Number, Timing, and Duration of

Marriages and Divorces: 1996,” Current

Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2002; Rose M. 

Kreider, “Number, Timing, and Duration of 

Marriages and Divorces: 2001,” Current 

Population Reports, P70-97, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2005; and Rose M. 

Kreider and Renee Ellis, “Number, Timing, and 

Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009,” 

Current Population Reports, P70-125,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2011. 

Marital history data were collected somewhat 

differently in the SIPP. Respondents answered 

questions about the number of times they 

had married. They were also asked when they 

had married, divorced, and widowed, if they 

had experienced these events. Dates for the 

beginning and end of up to three marriages 

were collected: first marriage, second marriage, and most recent marriage, regardless 

of whether this was the third or later marriage. For a detailed comparison of marital 

history data in the ACS versus the SIPP, see 

Diana B. Elliott, Tavia Simmons, and Jamie

M. Lewis, “Evaluation of the Marital Events 

Items on the ACS,” U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington, DC, 2010, available online at

<www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage

/data/acs/index.html>. 8 For information on the source of the 

1996 SIPP data and the accuracy of the

estimates, see <www.census.gov/content

/dam/Census/programs-surveys/sipp

/tech-documentation/source-accuracy

-statements/1996/SIPP 1996 Panel Wave 02 - 

Topical Module Source and Accuracy 

Statements.pdf>.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

women.9 Although this increase 

is observed across all age groups 

except adults aged 70 and over, 

it is largest among those aged 25 

to 29. For men of this age, the 

proportion never married grew 

about 14 percentage points, from 

49 percent in 1996 to 63 percent. 

For women aged 25 to 29, those 

never married increased from 35 

percent to 52 percent.10 This shift 

reflects increases in the median age 

at marriage. In 2012, the median 

age at first marriage was about 

29 years for men and 27 years for 

women, up from about 27 years 

9 See Table 3, Rose M. Kreider and Jason 

M. Fields, “Number, Timing, and Duration of 

Marriages and Divorces: 1996,” Current

Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2002. 10 The increase for women aged 25 to 

29 does not differ statistically from that for 

women aged 20 to 24.

for men and 25 years for women in 

1996.11

Another noteworthy change in 

marital history between 1996 and 

2008–2012 is the decrease in 

the proportion of adults that had 

married once, from 54 percent to 

50 percent of men and from 60 

percent to 54 percent of women. 

Two factors contribute to this 

decrease, and the driving factor 

differs by age. The first factor is 

the growth among those who had 

never married, noted previously, 

11 See historical Table MS-2, Estimated 

Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 

to the Present, accessible on the U.S. Census 

Bureau Web site at <www.census.gov/hhes

/families/files/ms2.xls>. For more information about the Current Population Survey 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement, see 

the technical documentation accessible at 

<www.census.gov/cps/methodology

/techdocs.html>.

which disproportionately impacts 

younger adults. The second factor is an increase in the proportion who had married two or more 

times. Although this increase is 

true for all adults, it is driven by 

the marital history of older adults. 

For example, the proportion of all 

women aged 15 and over who had 

married twice grew from 13 percent to 14 percent between 1996 

and 2008–2012. When looking at 

specific age groups, however, this 

proportion increased only among 

women aged 50 and older. For the 

younger age groups, the share 

of women who had married twice 

actually decreased. A similar pattern appears for women who had 

married three or more times.12

12 Change in the proportion married three 

or more times is not statistically significant 

for women aged 50 to 59 or 25 to 29.

Table 1.

Marital History for People 15 Years Old and Over by Age and Sex: 2008–2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Characteristic

Total,

15 years

and over

15 to 17 

years

18 to 19 

years

20 to 24 

years

25 to 29 

years

30 to 34 

years

35 to 39 

years

40 to 49 

years

50 to 59 

years

60 to 69 

years

70 years

and over

MALE

 Total . . . . . . . . . . 115,969,884 6,511,043 3,796,578 10,150,214 10,181,620 9,667,056 9,669,427 20,955,362 19,970,679 13,830,810 11,237,095

Percent

Never married . . . . . . . . 33.6 99.5 98.5 89.4 63.4 37.9 24.5 17.4 11.6 6.2 3.7

Ever married . . . . . . . . . 66.4 0.5 1.5 10.6 36.6 62.1 75.5 82.6 88.4 93.8 96.3

Married once . . . . . . . 49.9 0.5 1.5 10.4 34.9 56.5 64.2 63.5 60.5 60.3 69.4

 Currently married1 . 40.1 0.3 1.4 9.3 30.5 48.4 53.5 50.7 47.3 48.6 51.2

Married twice . . . . . . . 13.0 X X 0.3 1.7 5.2 10.1 16.0 21.6 24.4 20.4

 Currently married1 . 10.0 X X 0.2 1.5 4.5 8.4 12.7 16.5 18.8 15.0

Married three or

 more times . . . . . . . . 3.5 X X X 0.1 0.4 1.2 3.1 6.3 9.1 6.5

 Currently married1 . 2.6 X X X 0.1 0.3 0.9 2.3 4.7 6.6 4.6

FEMALE

 Total . . . . . . . . . . 124,129,728 6,216,078 3,519,612 10,073,564 10,371,401 9,943,647 10,028,068 21,837,736 21,342,984 15,324,558 15,472,080

Percent

Never married . . . . . . . . 27.9 99.4 96.1 81.5 51.7 29.9 19.6 13.7 9.6 5.9 3.9

Ever married . . . . . . . . . 72.1 0.6 3.9 18.5 48.3 70.1 80.4 86.3 90.4 94.1 96.1

Married once . . . . . . . 54.5 0.6 3.9 17.8 45.0 61.5 65.7 64.0 61.0 64.0 74.1

 Currently married1 . 37.3 0.5 3.6 15.4 37.7 50.3 51.9 47.7 43.1 41.4 28.8

Married twice . . . . . . . 14.0 X X 0.7 3.1 7.8 12.8 18.2 22.3 22.4 17.3

 Currently married1 . 9.0 X X 0.6 2.6 6.3 9.9 13.2 15.3 13.7 6.4

Married three or

 more times . . . . . . . . 3.7 X X X 0.2 0.7 1.9 4.1 7.0 7.6 4.7

 Currently married1 . 2.2 X X X 0.1 0.5 1.4 2.8 4.5 4.4 1.7

X Not applicable. 1

 Does not include those currently separated.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Among men, only those aged 60 

and older saw an increase in those 

who had married twice or those 

who had married at least three 

times.13 Today’s older adults came 

of age in the 1960s and 1970s 

when the divorce rate was increasing. In contrast, younger generations entered young adulthood at 

13 Change in the proportion married twice 

is not statistically significant for men aged 20 

to 24 or 50 to 59. Change in the proportion 

married at least three times is not statistically 

significant for men aged 25 to 29, 30 to 34, 

or 50 to 59.

a time when divorce rates had 

stabilized or declined.14

WHAT ARE THE 

CHARACTERISTICS OF 

THOSE WHO HAD MARRIED 

MORE THAN ONCE?

Figures 2 and 3 show the percentage of men and women aged 35 

and over who had married three 

or more times by age, race, and 

14 See Joshua R. Goldstein, “The Leveling 

of Divorce in the United States,” Demography, 

36(3):409–414, 1999.

Hispanic origin. Here, we look at 

those aged 35 and over to exclude 

many younger adults who have not 

had time to remarry, or may not 

have married at all. As was noted 

earlier, in general, the proportion who had married three or 

more times is higher for older age 

groups. An exception is the 65 

and over age group who are less 

likely than those aged 55 to 64 to 

Figure 2. 

Percentage of Men Married Three Times or More by Age, Race, and 

Hispanic Origin: 2008–2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions,

see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf) 

Universe: Men 35 years old and over.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012. 

5.0

2.0

7.6

1.2

3.4

0.3

1.2

0.9

5.3

2.2

7.8

5.2

7.1

1.8

7.6

6.8

1.0

7.7

2.8

8.7

1.9

3.7

8.9

5.3

35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years 65 years and over

Black alone Asian alone Hispanic White alone, not

Hispanic

White alone Other race

Race and Hispanic origin
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Figure 3. 

Percentage of Women Married Three Times or More by Age, Race, and 

Hispanic Origin: 2008–2012 

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions,

see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf) 

Universe: Women 35 years old and over.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.

6.5

3.1

5.8

1.0

2.7

0.5

1.7

1.2

6.9

3.5

6.0

3.0

6.7

1.2

4.1

4.4

1.3

5.4

2.9

8.7

1.9

4.4

9.1

4.1

35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years 65 years and over

Black alone Asian alone Hispanic White alone, not

Hispanic

White alone Other race

Race and Hispanic origin

have married at least three times.15

This pattern likely reflects a cohort 

effect. People born and coming of 

age at different times encounter 

varying expectations regarding 

marriage and divorce. Those who 

are aged 65 or older today reached 

15 This pattern does not hold for men 

who identify as Black alone or Some Other 

Race for whom the oldest age group is most 

likely to have married at least three times. 

For Asian and Hispanic men, the difference 

between the 55 to 64 and 65 and older age 

groups is not statistically significant. Among 

White, Asian, and non-Hispanic White women, 

the percentage for the 65 and over age group 

was also smaller than that for the 45 to 54 

age group, and these age groups do not differ 

for Hispanic women.

marriageable age in the 1950s and 

early 1960s when divorce rates 

were stable. As noted previously, 

divorce rates increased sharply in 

the 1960s and 1970s during the 

time when today’s 55- to 64-yearolds were young adults.

While overall in 2008–2012, just 

4 percent of adults had married 

three or more times, this varied by 

race and Hispanic origin. Among 

men aged 55 to 64, 9 percent of 

non-Hispanic Whites had married 

three or more times, compared 

with 7 percent of Blacks, 2 percent of Asians, and 5 percent of 

Hispanics, who may be of any race. 

The pattern for women aged 55 to 

64 is similar, with 9 percent of nonHispanic White women married at 

least three times, compared with 4 

percent of Black women, 2 percent 

of Asian women, and 4 percent of 

Hispanic women.16 This pattern, 

in which non-Hispanic Whites are 

most likely to have married three 

or more times and Asians least 

likely, is observed not only for both 

women and men but also for each 

age group.

16 The estimates for Black and Hispanic 

women differ statistically.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2 shows whether adults 15 

years old and over had ever married and the number of times they 

had married, by a variety of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The race and Hispanicorigin profiles show that a lower 

proportion of Whites had never 

married, compared with the overall 

adult population. That is, while 

about 31 percent of all adults had 

never married, this was true for 

only 27 percent of Whites. On the 

other hand, the percentage of those 

who are Black who had never married is higher than for all adults, 

at 47 percent. The same is true for 

Hispanics: 40 percent of Hispanics 

had never married. Asians are likely 

to have married only once: 63 percent, compared with 52 percent of 

adults overall.

Data on nativity makes it clear 

that those who are foreign born 

are more likely than all adults to 

have married only once, and are 

less likely to have married twice or 

three or more times. While about 

52 percent of all adults had married once, this is true of 64 percent 

of the foreign born. Also for the 

foreign born, only 10 percent had 

married twice and only 1 percent 

had married three or more times, 

compared with 13 percent and 4 

percent, respectively, of the general 

population. 

Turning to education, we see that 

those with less than a high school 

diploma or equivalency are more 

likely to be never married. This 

makes sense since we include people aged 15 and over, the youngest of whom have not had time to 

complete high school. High school 

graduates and those with some 

college or an associate’s degree are 

more likely to have married twice 

or three or more times. While 13 

percent of all adults had married 

twice, this is true of 15 percent of 

those with a high school education 

or some college or an associate’s 

degree.17 Similarly, percentages of 

those married three or more times 

are somewhat higher among those 

with a high school diploma or 

equivalency (4.4 percent) or some 

college or an associate’s degree 

(4.3 percent) than among all adults 

(3.6 percent).18 In contrast, adults 

with at least a bachelor’s degree 

had married only once more often 

than the general population. While 

overall, 52 percent of adults had 

married once, 64 percent of those 

with at least a bachelor’s degree 

had. This finding reflects the lower 

risk of divorce for those who have 

earned a bachelor’s degree or 

more.19 Those with more education are less likely to divorce, in 

part, because they tend to delay 

marriage,20 and later ages at marriage are associated with lower 

rates of marital instability.21 In 

addition, research suggests that 

because the highly educated are 

likely to have more resources, and 

their spouse is likely to be highly 

educated,22 they run a lower risk of 

conflict.23

17 The estimates for high school graduates 

and those with some college or an associate’s 

degree differ statistically. 18 The estimates for high school graduates 

and those with some college or an associate’s 

degree differ statistically. 19 See Megan M. Sweeney and Julie A.

Phillips, “Understanding Racial Differences

in Marital Disruption: Recent Trends and

Explanations,” Journal of Marriage and

Family, 66(3):639–650, 2004; and

Jay D. Teachman, “Stability Across Cohorts 

in Divorce Risk Factors,” Demography, 

39(2):331–351, 2002. 20 See Lucie Schmidt, “Risk Preferences and 

the Timing of Marriage and Childbearing,” 

Demography, 45(2):439–460, 2008. 21 See R. Kelly Raley and Larry L. Bumpass, 

“The Topography of the Divorce Plateau:

Levels and Trends in Union Stability in the 

United States after 1980,” Demographic 

Research, 8:245–260, 2003. 22 See Kevin Shafer and Zhenchao Qian, 

“Marriage Timing and Educational Assortative 

Mating,” Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 41(5):661–691, 2010. 23 See June Carbone and Naomi Cahn,

Marriage Markets: How Inequality is

Remaking the American Family, Oxford

University Press, New York, NY, 2014.

Employment status crossed with 

times married shows that the 

employed are most likely to have 

married once (54 percent). Those 

who are unemployed have the 

highest percentage never married 

(50 percent), and those who are not 

in the labor force have a slightly 

higher percentage married three or 

more times (4 percent). Those who 

are employed make more attractive partners and are more likely 

to marry than the unemployed.24

Further, unemployment and related 

financial hardship can be a great 

source of strain on marriages and 

are associated with a higher risk of 

divorce.25 However, it is important 

to remember that age is relevant 

for employment status. One reason 

the unemployed are more likely to 

have never married is that they are 

younger. Similarly, age may help 

explain the finding that a somewhat greater proportion of those 

not in the labor force had married 

three or more times, as retirement 

is one reason for being out of the 

labor force. 

Employment and income are connected, and a high percentage

(41 percent) of those in the lowest 

income group, earning less than 

$25,000, had never married. Adults 

with personal incomes of at least 

$100,000 are more likely to have 

married only once. While 52 percent of all adults had married once, 

this is true of 70 percent of those 

with incomes of at least $100,000. 

Similar to steady employment, 

higher income is related to a 

24 See Megan M. Sweeney, “Two Decades 

of Family Change: The Shifting Economic 

Foundations of Marriage,” American

Sociological Review, 67(1):132–147, 2002. 25 See Jeremy Arkes and Yu-Chu Shen, 

“For Better or for Worse, but how about a 

Recession?” Contemporary Economic Policy, 

32(2):275–287, 2014; and Nancy R.

Burnstein, “Economic Influences on Marriage 

and Divorce,” Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 26(2):387–429, 2007.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 2.

Characteristics of People 15 Years Old and Over by Times Married: 2008–2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Characteristic

Total Never married

Ever married

Married once Married twice

Married three or 

more times

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,099,612 73,648,554 125,502,358 32,347,199 8,601,501

 Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 30.7 52.3 13.5 3.6

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182,506,899 27.1 54.0 14.8 4.1

White alone, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,791,948 25.5 54.4 15.6 4.5

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,326,972 46.6 40.5 10.8 2.1

American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,843,308 40.4 42.6 12.6 4.4

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,870,498 29.8 63.0 6.5 0.7

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone . . . . . . 378,521 37.0 51.4 9.8 1.8

Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,532,222 42.2 49.3 7.4 1.1

Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,641,192 47.0 39.4 10.4 3.2

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,205,139 39.8 50.0 8.7 1.4

NATIVITY

Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202,873,086 31.8 50.0 14.2 4.0

Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,226,526 24.7 64.5 9.5 1.3

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,674,288 48.9 39.0 9.2 2.8

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,690,924 27.0 53.2 15.4 4.4

Some college or associate’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,109,281 30.2 50.1 15.3 4.3

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,625,119 21.7 63.5 12.4 2.4

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,721,827 29.0 54.4 13.4 3.1

Unemployed.................................... 14,286,225 49.7 37.2 10.2 2.9

Not in labor force1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,091,560 30.3 51.2 14.1 4.5

INCOME2

Less than $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128,034,730 41.4 44.2 11.1 3.3

$25,000 to $49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,177,276 22.4 57.7 15.7 4.1

$50,000 to $74,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,829,688 16.6 62.6 16.8 4.0

$75,000 to $99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,100,162 13.5 65.9 16.9 3.7

$100,000 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,957,756 10.0 70.0 16.6 3.4

POVERTY STATUS

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,437,844 48.6 38.7 9.6 3.0

100–199 percent of poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,507,005 35.4 48.8 12.2 3.6

200–299 percent of poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,214,714 31.4 51.6 13.3 3.7

300+ percent of poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,940,049 24.8 56.7 14.8 3.7

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Household receives public assistance3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,251,401 42.3 42.1 11.7 3.9

TENURE

Owns home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,220,307 24.0 57.0 15.0 3.9

Rents home4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,879,305 45.3 41.7 10.1 2.8

PRESENCE OF OWN CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS

With own children5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,437,130 11.0 72.6 14.0 2.3

1

 Includes those aged 15 who do not have information on employment status. 2

 Person’s total income adjusted using the Consumer Price Index. 3

 Includes households that receive cash public assistance income, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP, previously known as Food Stamps) benefits. 4

 Those who occupy without cash payment are included with renters. 5

 Includes never-married children under 18 years.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

greater chance of marrying and 

staying married.26

The distribution of times married by poverty status shows that, 

although 52 percent of all adults 

had married once, this is true for 

57 percent of those at 300 percent 

of poverty or higher. Compared 

with the overall population, a 

status of never married is more 

common not only for those below 

poverty but also for those receiving 

public assistance. 

Renters have a higher proportion never married (45 percent) 

than those owning their home (24 

percent), which partly reflects the 

26 See Avner Ahituv and Robert I. Lerman, 

“How Do Marital Status, Work Effort, and Wage 

Rates Interact?” Demography, 44(3):623–

647, 2007; Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer, 

“Cohabiting and Marriage during Young Men’s 

Career-Development Process,” Demography, 

40(1):127–149, 2003; and Megan M. Sweeney, “Two Decades of Family Change: The 

Shifting Economic Foundations of Marriage,” 

American Sociological Review, 67(1):132–147, 

2002.

younger age of renters.27 Adults 

with their own child under 18 years 

in the household are more likely 

to have married once (73 percent), 

compared with 52 percent for 

adults overall. Those living with 

their underage child are unlikely to 

have never married, at 11 percent. 

Again, this likely relates to this 

group’s older age.

HAS THE PROPORTION OF 

ADULTS WHO REMARRY 

INCREASED OVER TIME?

Marital patterns vary across the life 

course and have varied over time 

in the United States. Table 3 looks 

at the number of times men and 

women had married, for selected 

5-year birth cohorts from 1940 

to 1944 through 1975 to 1979. 

27 See Table B25007, accessible on

American FactFinder at <http://factfinder2

.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages

/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_13_1YR

_B25007&prodType=table>.

The rising percentage of men and 

women who had never married is 

connected to the increasing median 

age at first marriage since the midtwentieth century. Men and women 

born in 1940 to 1944 reached 

adulthood in 1960 to 1964, when 

the age at first marriage was about 

23 years for men and 20–21 years 

for women.28 In contrast, those 

born in 1975 to 1979 reached 

adulthood in 1995 to 1999, when 

the median age at first marriage 

was about 27 years for men and 

25 years for women. This helps 

explain why 5 percent of men and 

women born in 1940 to 1944 had 

28 See historical Table MS-2, Estimated 

Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 

to the Present, available on the U.S. Census 

Bureau Web site at <www.census.gov/hhes

/families/files/ms2.xls>. For more information about the Current Population Survey 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement,

see the technical documentation accessible

at <www.census.gov/cps/methodology

/techdocs.html>.

Table 3.

Marital History by Sex for Selected Birth Cohorts, 1940 to 1944 Through 1975 to 1979: 

2008–20121

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Characteristic 1940 to 

1944

1945 to 

1949

1950 to 

1954

1955 to 

1959

1960 to 

1964

1965 to 

1969

1970 to 

1974

1975 to 

1979

NUMBER

 Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,641,116 7,814,413 9,221,383 10,519,965 10,943,872 10,042,771 9,799,409 9,540,635

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276,975 523,516 882,525 1,335,083 1,730,004 1,867,149 2,320,185 3,475,528

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,501,778 4,636,795 5,495,080 6,431,107 6,844,849 6,453,472 6,312,590 5,485,517

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,350,306 1,935,897 2,145,666 2,167,656 1,946,368 1,477,495 1,039,963 539,324

Married three or more times . . 512,057 718,205 698,112 586,119 422,651 244,655 126,671 40,266

 Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,400,289 8,554,177 9,954,575 11,197,442 11,464,300 10,416,204 10,156,449 9,837,139

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309,929 548,268 819,729 1,167,001 1,408,998 1,543,488 1,936,444 2,824,700

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,259,435 5,364,877 6,044,201 6,858,543 7,213,895 6,747,747 6,674,650 6,116,092

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,371,770 1,960,986 2,318,452 2,440,620 2,271,932 1,773,209 1,343,169 817,667

Married three or more times . . 459,155 680,046 772,193 731,278 569,475 351,760 202,186 78,680

PERCENT

 Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 6.7 9.6 12.7 15.8 18.6 23.7 36.4

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.1 59.3 59.6 61.1 62.5 64.3 64.4 57.5

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 24.8 23.3 20.6 17.8 14.7 10.6 5.7

Married three or more times . . 9.1 9.2 7.6 5.6 3.9 2.4 1.3 0.4

 Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 6.4 8.2 10.4 12.3 14.8 19.1 28.7

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6 62.7 60.7 61.3 62.9 64.8 65.7 62.2

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 22.9 23.3 21.8 19.8 17.0 13.2 8.3

Married three or more times . . 7.2 7.9 7.8 6.5 5.0 3.4 2.0 0.8

1

 This table includes people 15 years old and over.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

never married,29 compared with 36 

percent of men and 29 percent of 

women born in 1975 to 1979. In 

2008–2012, when these data were 

collected, those born in 1975 to 

1979 were aged 29 to 37. Thus, 

many of them were within 5 years 

of the median age at marriage, the 

age at which only half of those 

who we would expect to marry had 

already married. 

Compared with the shift in those 

who had never married, change 

over time in the percentage of men 

and women who had married once 

is smaller. There were 62 percent 

of men born in 1940 to 1944 that 

married once, compared with 57 

percent of men born in 1975 to 

1979. The corresponding percentages for women are 67 percent for 

the earlier cohort, and 62 percent 

for those born in the late 1970s. 

The percentage of adults who 

had married three or more times 

decreased for later birth cohorts. 

Although 9 percent of men born in 

the 1940s married three or more 

times, this is true of only 1 percent 

of those born in the early 1970s. 

29 The estimates for men and women

differ statistically.

While 8 percent of women born 

in the late 1940s married three 

or more times, 2 percent of those 

born in the early 1970s had. Of 

course, the percentage who marry 

three or more times may increase 

for the early 1970s birth cohort 

since they are still fairly young.

HOW MANY MARRIAGES 

INCLUDE ONE OR BOTH 

SPOUSES WHO HAD 

PREVIOUSLY MARRIED?

Not all newlyweds begin married 

life with the same marital history. 

The marriage may be a first for 

both, or one or both spouses may 

have married previously. These latter couples may enter the marriage 

with children and commitments 

from previous marital unions, 

which may contribute to differences in marital dynamics. Table 4 

takes a more detailed look at the 

number of times wives and husbands had married when surveyed 

in 2008–2012. While both spouses 

were in their first marriage in 67 

percent of all currently married 

couples in 2008–2012, this situation occurred for just 58 percent 

of the couples who had married 

within the previous year. Thus, 

recent marriages were less likely 

than all marriages to entail the first 

marriage for both the husband and 

wife. However, the majority of both 

current and recent marriages were 

first marriages for both spouses. 

Data published by the National 

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 

provide information from an 

earlier time period on couples in 

which both were marrying for the 

first time. NCHS recorded that 54 

percent of couples who married in 

1990 involved both spouses entering their first marriage.30 Thus, 

recent marriages in 2008–2012 

were more likely to be a first marriage for both spouses than in 

30 See Table 7, Sally C. Clarke, “Advance 

Report of Final Marriage Statistics, 1989

and 1990,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 

Vol. 43, No. 12(S), National Center for Health

Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 1995, available 

online at <www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr

/supp/mv43_12s.pdf>. The NCHS compiled 

state-level administrative data from marriage 

certificates and divorce decrees, including 

information from a subset of states on previous marital status. For a detailed comparison 

of marital events data from the ACS versus 

the NCHS, see Diana B. Elliott, Tavia Simmons, 

and Jamie M. Lewis, “Evaluation of the Marital 

Events Items on the ACS,” U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2010, available online at 

<www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage

/data/acs/index.html>. 

Table 4.

Number of Times Married for Currently Married Wives and Their Husbands: 2008–20121

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Number of times wife has

been married

Number of times husband has been married

All current marriages Married within the last year

Total

Married 

once

Married 

twice

Married 

three or 

more times Total

Married 

once

Married 

twice

Married 

three or 

more times

NUMBER OF MARRIAGES

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,430,530 43,520,381 11,065,052 2,845,097 1,827,733 1,240,287 435,290 152,156

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,100,306 38,721,201 4,684,966 694,139 1,267,179 1,057,114 176,665 33,400

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,749,077 4,246,709 5,144,783 1,357,585 416,485 155,462 193,738 67,285

Married three or more times . . 2,581,147 552,471 1,235,303 793,373 144,069 27,711 64,887 51,471

PERCENT OF MARRIAGES

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 75.8 19.3 5.0 100.0 67.9 23.8 8.3

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.8 67.4 8.2 1.2 69.3 57.8 9.7 1.8

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7 7.4 9.0 2.4 22.8 8.5 10.6 3.7

Married three or more times . . 4.5 1.0 2.2 1.4 7.9 1.5 3.6 2.8

1

 This table includes people 15 years old and over who are married, spouse present.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

1990. This may reflect the stabilization or slight decrease in divorce 

since the late 1980s.31

About 7 percent of all currently 

married couples involve a wife in 

her second marriage and a husband 

in his first marriage, while another 

8 percent of all currently married 

31 See Yi Zeng et al., “A Multistate Life 

Table Analysis of Union Regimes in the 

United States: Trends and Racial Differentials, 

1970–2002,” Population Research and Policy 

Review, 31(2):207–234, 2012.

couples involve a husband in his 

second marriage and a wife in her 

first marriage. About 9 percent of 

currently married couples and 11 

percent of couples married within 

the year prior to the survey involve 

spouses who are both in their 

second marriage. ACS data show 

that 21 percent of couples married 

in the previous year involve both 

spouses marrying for at least the 

second time, compared with the 

NCHS estimate of 24 percent in 

1990. Again, that recent marriages 

in 2008–2012 were less likely 

than those in 1990 to be at least a 

second marriage for both spouses 

is consistent with a relatively stable 

divorce rate in recent decades. A 

very small percentage of all currently married couples (1 percent), 

and 3 percent of those married in 

the last year, consist of a husband 

and wife who had both married 

three or more times. 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

KS

CO

NM

OR

UT

SD

IL

WY

NE

IA

FL

MN

OK

ND

WI

WA

AL GA

MO

PA

AR

LA

NC

MS

NY

IN

MI

VA

TN

KY

SC

OH

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MD

MA

CT

DE

RI

DC

AK

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Statistical significance 

as compared to the 

national average

Statistically higher

No difference

Statistically lower

Percentage of Ever–Married People 15 Years Old and Over

That Had Married Two or More Times by State: 2008–2012

Figure 4.

U.S. percent is 24.6

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Note: This figure includes people living in

households and group quarters. 
U.S. Census Bureau 11

There is a substantively small but 

statistically significant gender 

dynamic for couples where one 

person had married once and the 

other twice. Among these couples, 

more often the wife is the spouse 

who had married only once. For 

example, among couples that married within the last year, about 10 

percent involve a wife marrying for 

the first time and a husband marrying for the second time. In contrast, 

about 9 percent of recent marriages 

involve a husband marrying for the 

first time and a wife marrying for 

the second time. This pattern likely 

relates to the tendency of men to 

marry women who are younger 

than they are, though this trend 

has weakened over time.32

HOW DOES THE 

PERCENTAGE OF ADULTS 

WHO HAD MARRIED TWO 

OR MORE TIMES VARY 

GEOGRAPHICALLY?

The 5-year ACS represents all geographic levels for all U.S. states and 

the District of Columbia. Figure 4 

shows state-level geographic differences in the prevalence of evermarried adults that had married 

two or more times. In particular, 

Figure 4 displays the percentage of 

ever-married people 15 years old 

and over that had married two or 

more times (25 percent nationwide) 

and whether the estimate for each 

32 See Rose M. Kreider and Jason

M. Fields, “Number, Timing, and Duration

of Marriages and Divorces: 1996,” Current

Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2002; and Vincent 

Kang Fu, “Remarriage, Delayed Marriage, and 

Black/White Intermarriage, 1968-1995,”

Population Research Policy Review, 29(5):687–

713, 2010. 

state is above or below the national 

average.33

Only one state (New Hampshire) 

has a percentage of ever-married 

adults that had remarried that is 

not significantly different from 

the national average. Instead, 

the national average reflects the 

average of some regions that have 

more remarried people and others that have fewer. States with 

a percentage of remarried adults 

below the national estimate are 

concentrated in the Northeast 

and Midwest, while Southern and 

Western states generally exceed 

the national average. However, 

there are exceptions in each region, 

including Maine in the Northeast 

and Utah, California, and Hawaii in 

the West. Levels of remarriage in 

the Mid-Atlantic states of Maryland, 

Virginia, and Washington, DC, look 

more like those in the neighboring 

Northeast. The Midwestern states 

of Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, and 

Ohio resemble the Southern states 

they border. Among all states, the 

percentage of ever-married adults 

that had married two or more 

times is greatest in Arkansas (35 

percent). Remarried people are 

least common in New Jersey (16 

percent).

In addition to states, the 5-year 

ACS represents all MSAs in the 

United States. Table 5 lists MSAs 

that have among the highest or 

33 Because geographic patterns in remarriage are similar for both sexes, we look at all 

adults 15 years old and over. For information 

on each state’s percentage of ever-married 

men and women that had married two or 

more times, see Appendix Table E. A sortable version is accessible on the U.S. Census 

Bureau Web site at <www.census.gov/hhes

/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/Appendix

_Tables_EF.xls>.

lowest percentages of ever-married 

people 15 years old and over who 

had married two or more times. 

Among ever-married adults in the 

United States, 25 percent had married two or more times. Among the 

MSAs with the highest percentages 

are Lake Havasu City-Kingman, 

Arizona and Prescott, Arizona, both 

of which have about 40 percent or 

more ever-married adults who had 

married two or more times.34 MSAs 

with among the lowest percentages 

of people who had married two or 

more times, each at 15 percent or 

less, include New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island, New 

York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania and 

Laredo, Texas.35

Figure 5 displays additional information on geographic variation 

in times married at the MSA level. 

For each MSA, it shows whether 

the percentage of ever-married 

adults that had married two or 

more times is above or below the 

national average.36 As was seen for 

states, Southern and Western MSAs 

generally have a high percentage 

of ever-married adults that had 

married two or more times, while 

MSAs with lower percentages are 

mostly located in the Northeast and 

Midwest. In addition, most MSAs 

fall on the same side of the national 

34 The estimates for Lake Havasu CityKingman and Prescott do not differ statistically.35 The estimates for New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island and Laredo do not 

differ statistically. 36 Because geographic patterns in remarriage are similar for both sexes, we look at all 

adults 15 years old and over. For information 

on each MSA’s percentage of ever-married 

men and women that had married two or 

more times, see Appendix Table F. A sortable 

version is accessible on the U.S. Census 

Bureau Web site at <www.census.gov/hhes

/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/Appendix

_Tables_EF.xls>.
12 U.S. Census Bureau

average as the state in which they 

are located. There are several 

exceptions, however. For example, 

although the state of California

(21 percent) has a lower proportion 

of remarried people than the United 

States, the opposite is true for several MSAs in the northern part of 

the state. Chico, Redding,

Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—

Roseville, Santa Rosa-Petaluma, 

Vallejo-Fairfield, and Yuba City all 

have rates higher than the United 

States. While Colorado as a whole 

has a higher percentage of remarried adults (26 percent), Boulder 

stands out with only 23 percent.

An interesting case in the Southern 

United States is North Carolina’s 

triangle region. Only about 22 

percent to 23 percent of evermarried adults in Durham-Chapel 

Hill and Raleigh-Cary had married 

two or more times, compared with 

27 percent statewide. This may be 

explained by migration patterns. 

The triangle region draws residents 

from other parts of the country, 

including from the Northeast and 

Midwest, where remarriage is

less common. In the Northeast,

Williamsport is noteworthy, as it 

is the only MSA in Pennsylvania 

whose percentage of remarried 

adults (27 percent) exceeds the 

national average. There is diversity 

in the marital history patterns of 

MSAs in Illinois. Indeed, the statelevel value appears to be driven 

by residents of the Chicago area. 

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, which 

includes parts of Indiana and 

Wisconsin, is the only Illinois MSA 

whose proportion of remarried 

adults (18 percent) is lower than 

the national estimate. Several

llinois MSAs have percentages 

above the national average, including Danville, Davenport-MolineRock Island (includes part of Iowa), 

Decatur, Peoria, Rockford, and 

Springfield.

Table 5.

Selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas With Among the 

Highest and Lowest Percentages of Ever-Married People

15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two or More 

Times: 2008–20121

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, 

and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation

/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or

more times

Percent

Margin of

error

 U.S. total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 0.04

AMONG THE HIGHEST2

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.7 1.41

Prescott, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.2 1.22

Hot Springs, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.8 1.61

Sherman-Denison, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 1.16

Fort Smith, AR-OK................................. 37.8 0.86

Punta Gorda, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 1.34

Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL . . . . . . . 36.8 1.36

Longview, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.6 1.40

Coeur d’Alene, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 1.26

Carson City, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 2.21

Pine Bluff, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 1.44

Ocala, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.1 0.93

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 1.37

Medford, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 1.18

Redding, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 1.06

Lewiston, ID-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.4 1.70

Morristown, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.4 1.38

Joplin, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 0.84

Brunswick, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 1.51

Anderson, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.7 1.10

AMONG THE LOWEST2

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . 14.9 0.08

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 1.06

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 0.27

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 0.60

Trenton-Ewing, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 0.72

St. Cloud, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 0.71

Rochester, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9 0.64

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 0.18

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 0.37

Provo-Orem, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 0.59

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 0.66

Dubuque, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 1.10

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 0.13

Mankato-North Mankato, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 0.93

Appleton, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 0.71

Scranton—Wilkes-Barre, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 0.45

Johnstown, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.8 0.84

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 0.14

Logan, UT-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 0.99

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 0.19

1

 This table includes people living in households and group quarters. 2

 Estimates shown in this table may not differ statistically from one another or from estimates for other 

metropolitan statistical areas.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
U.S. Census Bureau 13 0 500 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles Statistical significance as compared to the national average Statistically higher No difference Percentage of Ever–Married People 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–2012 Figure 5. Statistically lower U.S. percent is 24.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012. Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. Note: This figure includes people living in households and group quarters. (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)
14 U.S. Census Bureau

SUMMARY AND 

CONCLUSION

This report uses data from the 

2008–2012 American Community 

Survey to describe remarriage in 

the United States, making comparisons with data from the 1996

Survey of Income and Program 

Participation and the National 

Center for Health Statistics. It discusses the characteristics of those 

who had married more than once, 

including patterns by sex, age, and 

race and Hispanic origin. It further 

outlines shifts in remarriage over 

time, couple-level patterns in marriage and remarriage, and geographic variation in the prevalence 

of those who had married more 

than once.

Although marriage patterns in the 

United States have changed considerably over the past half-century, 

when placed within a larger global 

context there is still evidence that 

Americans value marriage. Compared with other industrialized 

countries, Americans have higher 

marriage rates and marry somewhat earlier.37 Marital disruption is 

higher in the United States compared with European nations.38 We 

see a pattern of marriage, divorce, 

and remarriage, or “marriagego-round.”39 This pattern in the 

United States, along with the various opportunities and challenges 

remarriages present, has important 

implications for those involved. 

37 See Gary R. Lee and Krista K. Payne, 

“Changing Marriage Patterns Since 1970: 

What’s Going On, and Why?” Journal of

Comparative Family Studies, 41(4):537–555, 

2010. 38 See Gunnar Andersson, “Dissolution of 

Unions in Europe: A Comparative Overview,” 

MPIDR Working Paper, WP 2003–004, Max 

Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 

Rostock, Germany, 2003. 39 See Andrew J. Cherlin, The Marriage-GoRound: The State of Marriage and the Family 

in America Today, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 

NY, 2009.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The data in this report are from the 

2008–2012 American Community 

Survey (ACS). The population represented (the population universe) in 

the ACS is the population living in 

both households and group quarters—that is, the resident population. The group quarters population 

consists of the institutionalized 

population (such as people in correctional institutions or nursing 

homes) and the noninstitutionalized population (most of whom 

are in college dormitories). For 

tabulation purposes in this report, 

for most tables and figures, ACS 

data are shown only for the population living in households due to 

the inclusion of household characteristics. However, the population in both households and group 

quarters is included in geographic 

analysis, including Table 5 and 

Figures 4 and 5. The U.S. Census 

Bureau is both the sponsor and the 

collector of the ACS.

In general, ACS estimates are 

period estimates that describe the 

average characteristics of the population and housing over a period 

of data collection. For example, 

the 2012 ACS 1-year estimates 

are averages over the period from 

January 1, 2012 to December 31, 

2012, because this is the period 

of time for which sample data 

were collected. Similarly, multiyear estimates are averages of the 

characteristics over several years. 

For example, the 2008–2012 ACS 

5-year estimates are averages over 

the period from January 1, 2008 

to December 31, 2012. Multiyear 

estimates cannot be used to say 

what was going on in any particular 

year in the period, only what the 

average value is over the full-time 

period.

ACCURACY OF THE 

ESTIMATES

Statistics from surveys are subject 

to sampling and nonsampling error. 

Sampling error occurs when the 

characteristics of a sample are measured instead of those of the entire 

population (as from a census). Note 

that sample-based estimates will 

vary depending on the particular 

sample selected from the population, but all attempt to approximate 

the actual figures. Measures of the 

magnitude of sampling error reflect 

the variation in the estimates over 

all possible samples that could 

have been selected from the population using the same sampling, 

data collection, and processing 

methods. 

Estimates of the magnitude of 

sampling errors are provided in 

the form of margins of error for all 

key ACS estimates included in this 

report. The Census Bureau recommends that data users incorporate 

this information into their analyses, 

as sampling error in survey estimates could impact the conclusions 

drawn from the results. All comparisons presented in this report 

have taken sampling error into 

account and are significant at the 

90 percent confidence level, unless 

otherwise indicated. This means 

the 90 percent confidence interval for the difference between the 

estimates being compared does not 

include zero. 

Nonsampling errors in surveys 

may be attributed to a variety of 

sources, such as how the survey 

is designed, how respondents 

interpret questions, how able and 

willing respondents are to provide correct answers, and how 

accurately the answers are coded 

and classified. The Census Bureau 
U.S. Census Bureau 15

employs quality control procedures throughout the production 

process—including overall survey 

design, question wording, review 

of interviewers’ and coders’ work, 

and statistical review of reports—to 

minimize these errors.

The final ACS population estimates 

are adjusted in the weighting procedure for coverage error by controlling specific survey estimates to 

independent population controls by 

age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. 

The final ACS estimates of housing 

units are controlled to independent 

estimates of total housing. This 

weighting partially corrects for bias 

due to over- or undercoverage, 

but biases may still be present; for 

example, when people who are 

missed by the survey differ from 

those interviewed in ways other 

than age, race, sex, and Hispanic 

origin. How this weighting procedure affects other variables in the 

survey is not precisely known. All 

of these considerations affect comparisons across different surveys or 

data sources. 

For further information on the

ACS sample, weighting procedures, 

sampling error, nonsampling error, 

and quality measures from the ACS, 

see <www.census.gov

/acs/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy

/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012

.pdf>. 

MORE INFORMATION

Data supplementing Figures 4 and 

5 are available in Appendix Tables

E and F. Sortable versions are on 

the Census Bureau’s Web site at 

<www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo

/marriage/data/acs/Appendix

_Tables_EF.xls>. Appendix Table 

E shows, for each state, the percentage of ever-married men and 

women that had married two or 

more times. Appendix Table F contains this information at the MSA 

level. 

To access ACS tables about

households and families, see

the American FactFinder on the 

Census Bureau’s Web site at

<http://factfinder2.census.gov

/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index

.xhtml>.

Additional working papers and 

information about marriage and 

divorce are available on the Census 

Bureau’s Web site at <www.census

.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/>.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Lewis, Jamie M. and Rose M.

Kreider, “Remarriage in

the United States,” American

Community Survey Reports,

ACS-30, U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington, DC, 2015.

CONTACTS

For additional information on these 

topics, contact the authors of this 

report:

Jamie Lewis: 

Jamie.Michelle.Lewis@census.gov

Rose Kreider: 

Rose.Kreider@census.gov

Fertility and Family Statistics 

Branch: 301-763-2416
16 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table A.

Margins of Error1 for Table 1 Estimates—Marital History for People 15 Years Old and Over 

by Age and Sex: 2008–2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

 Characteristic

Total,

15 years 

and over

15 to 17 

years

18 to 19 

years

20 to 24 

years

25 to 29 

years

30 to 34 

years

35 to 39 

years

40 to 49 

years

50 to 59 

years

60 to 69 

years

70 years 

and over

MALE

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,934 3,322 6,313 7,500 5,949 5,131 17,245 19,155 17,700 18,708 10,309

Percent

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.21 0.37 0.34 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.03

Ever married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.21 0.37 0.34 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.03

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.37 0.32 0.18 0.13 0.08 0.10

 Currently married2 . . . . . . 0.18 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.22 0.44 0.46 0.29 0.23 0.09 0.18

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 X X 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08

 Currently married2 . . . . . . 0.03 X X 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06

Married three or more times.. 0.01 X X X 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05

 Currently married2 . . . . . . 0.01 X X X Z 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03

FEMALE

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,156 2,784 6,708 7,437 4,581 3,343 19,273 18,323 13,941 17,339 10,348

Percent

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.29 0.24 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.04

Ever married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.29 0.24 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.04

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.17 0.30 0.26 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.08

 Currently married2 . . . . . . 0.14 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.38 0.25 0.22 0.08 0.19

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02 X X 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06

 Currently married2 . . . . . . 0.02 X X 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.04

Married three or more times.. 0.01 X X X 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03

 Currently married2 . . . . . . 0.01 X X X 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02

X Not applicable.

Z Rounds to zero. 1

 This number, when added to and subtracted from the corresponding estimate in Table 1, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate. 2

 Does not include those currently separated.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Appendix Table B.

Margins of Error1 for Table 2 Estimates—Characteristics of People 15 Years Old and Over 

by Times Married: 2008–2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Characteristic

Total Never married

Ever married

Married once Married twice

Married three or 

more times

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,593 278,004 262,442 44,023 20,049

 Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.01

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,598 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.01

White alone, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,425 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.01

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,581 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.02

American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . . . . . . . . . . 10,768 0.26 0.28 0.17 0.09

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,426 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.02

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone . . . . . 3,269 0.55 0.65 0.37 0.16

Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,542 0.17 0.15 0.06 0.03

Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,951 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.05

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,764 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.02

NATIVITY

Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,852 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.01

Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,552 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.02

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,603 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157,496 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.02

Some college or associate’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,644 0.14 0.12 0.04 0.02

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274,475 0.14 0.16 0.04 0.01

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,254 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.01

Unemployed................................... 32,599 0.11 0.12 0.06 0.03

Not in labor force2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,272 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02

INCOME3

Less than $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,818 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.01

$25,000 to $49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,158 0.15 0.13 0.03 0.02

$50,000 to $74,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,265 0.15 0.16 0.06 0.02

$75,000 to $99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,367 0.16 0.19 0.07 0.04

$100,000 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80,762 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.03

POVERTY STATUS

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,869 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.02

100–199 percent of poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,476 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.02

200–299 percent of poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,438 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.02

300+ percent of poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320,216 0.10 0.11 0.03 0.01

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Household receives public assistance4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133,116 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.02

TENURE

Owns home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477,122 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.01

Rents home5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471,132 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.01

PRESENCE OF OWN CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS

With own children6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355,344 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.02

X Not applicable. 1

 This number, when added to and subtracted from the corresponding estimate in Table 2, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate. 2

 Includes those aged 15 who do not have information on employment status. 3

 Person’s total income adjusted using the Consumer Price Index. 4

 Includes households that receive cash public assistance income, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 

previously known as Food Stamps) benefits. 5

 Those who occupy without cash payment are included with renters. 6

 Includes never-married children under 18 years.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
18 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table C.

Margins of Error1 for Table 3 Estimates—Marital History by Sex for Selected Birth Cohorts, 

1940 to 1944 Through 1975 to 1979: 2008–20122

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Characteristic 1940 to 

1944

1945 to 

1949

1950 to 

1954

1955 to 

1959

1960 to 

1964

1965 to 

1969

1970 to 

1974

1975 to 

1979

NUMBER

 Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,995 15,692 16,553 14,840 14,726 19,656 18,703 14,003

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,496 6,183 11,324 15,613 18,607 22,150 32,089 35,286

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,310 13,453 16,289 20,316 18,800 31,772 32,026 34,557

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,612 8,408 9,225 9,198 10,681 7,728 7,362 5,881

Married three or more times . . . 4,628 5,417 5,968 5,613 4,720 3,900 2,448 1,621

 Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,370 13,686 15,850 16,589 16,142 18,308 21,012 16,028

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,088 5,822 9,710 13,303 15,632 16,659 22,542 26,166

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,084 13,342 16,051 21,092 19,663 18,724 35,029 30,482

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,205 8,459 9,749 9,875 9,803 9,242 6,180 7,026

Married three or more times . . . 4,629 5,123 5,918 5,576 5,417 3,621 3,272 2,061

PERCENT

 Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X X X X X

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.23 0.32 0.36

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.31 0.36

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06

Married three or more times . . . 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02

 Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X X X X X

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.23 0.27

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.27 0.28

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07

Married three or more times . . . 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02

X Not applicable. 1

 This number, when added to and subtracted from the corresponding estimate in Table 3, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate. 2

 This table includes people 15 years old and over.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix Table D.

Margins of Error1 for Table 4 Estimates—Number of Times Married for Currently Married 

Wives and Their Husbands: 2008–20122

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Number of times wife has

been married

Number of times husband has been married

All current marriages Married within the last year

Total

Married 

once

Married 

twice

Married 

three or 

more times Total

Married 

once

Married 

twice

Married 

three or 

more times

NUMBER OF MARRIAGES

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226,797 188,853 37,851 13,714 12,616 10,352 4,816 3,163

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,598 177,484 25,136 6,034 11,089 9,973 3,160 1,418

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,330 14,653 16,509 8,212 4,714 2,538 2,944 1,889

Married three or more times . . . . . 11,046 5,486 7,673 5,696 2,802 1,288 1,859 1,612

PERCENT OF MARRIAGES

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 0.05 0.04 0.02 X 0.27 0.23 0.16

Married once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.28 0.31 0.16 0.08

Married twice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.10

Married three or more times . . . . . 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.09

X Not applicable. 1

 This number, when added to and subtracted from the corresponding estimate in Table 4, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate. 2

 This table includes people 15 years old and over who are married, spouse present.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
U.S. Census Bureau 19

Appendix Table E.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by State: 2008–20121

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

State or equivalent

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

 U.S. total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8 0.04 24.4 0.04

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.9 0.28 30.9 0.25

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 0.83 29.1 0.68

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0 0.27 28.3 0.24

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 0.35 34.5 0.31

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8 0.10 20.7 0.08

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 0.22 26.7 0.23

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.7 0.28 18.4 0.28

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 0.57 24.4 0.50

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.7 0.89 15.4 0.58

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 0.16 29.4 0.14

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 0.21 27.4 0.22

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 0.41 19.3 0.38

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.3 0.43 30.9 0.45

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 0.15 20.8 0.13

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.4 0.23 28.7 0.21

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 0.27 23.4 0.25

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 0.31 27.2 0.27

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 0.28 30.2 0.25

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1 0.27 27.0 0.29

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0 0.46 27.3 0.37

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 0.24 21.2 0.22

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 0.21 16.2 0.17

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 0.14 24.2 0.14

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 0.17 18.8 0.16

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 0.41 29.3 0.35

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0 0.21 29.0 0.21

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 0.54 28.7 0.43

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 0.31 22.0 0.30

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 0.43 31.6 0.32

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 0.40 24.1 0.36

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 0.17 15.8 0.16

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 0.41 26.7 0.36

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9 0.11 16.4 0.09

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 0.18 26.8 0.18

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 0.51 19.1 0.47

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 0.17 25.9 0.16

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 0.27 33.9 0.24

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 0.32 31.1 0.32

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 0.12 19.8 0.11

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 0.57 18.9 0.44

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 0.29 27.1 0.23

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 0.46 21.7 0.53

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 0.24 31.4 0.22

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.1 0.12 26.1 0.12

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 0.37 23.2 0.30

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 0.55 23.5 0.55

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 0.21 23.9 0.16

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 0.20 27.9 0.20

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 0.39 28.5 0.35

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 0.20 20.6 0.19

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 0.83 30.8 0.76

1

 This table includes people living in households and group quarters. 2

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error 

is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.
20 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

 U.S. total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8 0.04 24.4 0.04

Abilene, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 1.36 31.1 1.20

Akron, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 0.63 25.3 0.60

Albany, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 1.64 30.6 1.51

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9 0.52 19.1 0.54

Albuquerque, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 0.58 26.1 0.56

Alexandria, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8 1.68 29.2 1.28

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 0.56 20.5 0.53

Altoona, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 1.46 22.4 1.19

Amarillo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 1.09 32.0 1.07

Ames, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.0 1.28 17.8 1.38

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 1.05 29.6 1.03

Anderson, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.5 1.45 34.8 1.45

Anderson, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 1.24 28.9 1.11

Ann Arbor, MI......................................... 21.4 0.93 21.1 0.76

Anniston-Oxford, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 1.67 34.0 1.45

Appleton, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 0.85 18.0 0.89

Asheville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 0.97 30.3 0.91

Athens-Clarke County, GA............................... 24.6 1.23 24.9 1.21

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 0.29 24.7 0.29

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 1.07 22.1 0.94

Auburn-Opelika, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 1.75 31.2 1.63

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 0.81 28.8 0.80

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 0.48 25.8 0.45

Bakersfield-Delano, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 0.59 25.0 0.64

Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 0.39 21.8 0.30

Bangor, ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0 1.25 29.5 1.20

Barnstable Town, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 1.06 20.1 0.98

Baton Rouge, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 0.68 26.6 0.66

Battle Creek, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 1.15 28.3 1.27

Bay City, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 1.47 24.9 1.35

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 0.91 32.5 0.88

Bellingham, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 1.36 26.0 1.19

Bend, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 1.42 33.3 1.25

Billings, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 1.17 27.9 1.28

Binghamton, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 0.88 22.4 0.92

Birmingham-Hoover, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 0.64 28.9 0.50

Bismarck, ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 1.27 19.0 1.20

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.0 1.49 27.6 1.34

Bloomington, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 1.29 31.0 1.26

Bloomington-Normal, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 1.10 24.4 1.12

Boise City-Nampa, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 0.72 31.1 0.80

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 0.25 15.4 0.21

Boulder, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 0.88 23.3 0.94

Bowling Green, KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 1.62 30.7 1.78

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9 0.98 31.1 1.25

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 0.48 15.3 0.45

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.3 0.87 15.9 0.82

Brunswick, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3 2.04 35.6 1.82

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 0.40 18.1 0.45

Burlington, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8 1.73 29.0 1.51

See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau 21

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

Burlington-South Burlington, VT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 0.97 20.3 1.17

Canton-Massillon, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 0.87 26.7 0.77

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 0.89 31.5 0.75

Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 1.80 28.6 1.39

Carson City, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.7 2.81 37.6 2.45

Casper, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 1.83 32.0 2.05

Cedar Rapids, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 1.03 23.9 0.82

Champaign-Urbana, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 1.07 23.9 1.07

Charleston, WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.1 1.10 28.8 0.97

Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 0.86 26.3 0.66

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 0.45 24.3 0.37

Charlottesville, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 1.28 23.0 1.21

Chattanooga, TN-GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.7 0.83 32.9 0.84

Cheyenne, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.3 1.94 32.6 2.02

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.3 0.18 17.7 0.14

Chico, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 1.26 34.6 1.49

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 0.39 25.4 0.34

Clarksville, TN-KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 1.02 31.5 1.26

Cleveland, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.4 1.71 35.7 1.69

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.6 0.33 22.1 0.34

Coeur d’Alene, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 1.64 37.5 1.47

College Station-Bryan, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 1.39 25.4 1.35

Colorado Springs, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 0.71 28.5 0.63

Columbia, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5 1.47 25.4 1.51

Columbia, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 0.54 25.2 0.69

Columbus, GA-AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 1.08 31.1 1.17

Columbus, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 1.92 30.3 1.84

Columbus, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.9 0.41 25.8 0.40

Corpus Christi, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 1.11 27.8 1.00

Corvallis, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 2.12 28.4 1.91

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL.................... 33.2 1.42 34.4 1.21

Cumberland, MD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.6 1.58 25.5 1.40

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlingon, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 0.24 26.3 0.24

Dalton, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 1.70 32.5 1.51

Danville, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 2.08 31.3 1.82

Danville, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5 1.57 28.5 1.58

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 0.68 26.2 0.81

Dayton, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 0.59 28.0 0.56

Decatur, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 1.19 33.4 1.41

Decatur, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8 1.69 30.6 1.38

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.0 0.88 33.8 0.84

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 0.30 25.4 0.38

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 0.58 23.7 0.75

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 0.24 21.9 0.25

Dothan, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 1.22 33.4 0.89

Dover, DE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 1.43 28.3 1.26

Dubuque, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 1.45 17.4 1.29

Duluth, MN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 0.76 23.3 0.78

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 0.92 22.9 0.89

Eau Claire, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 1.02 19.4 0.85

See footnotes at end of table.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

El Centro, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 1.30 18.6 1.25

Elizabethtown, KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 1.67 29.8 1.39

Elkhart-Goshen, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 1.43 27.5 1.35

Elmira, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 1.88 25.3 1.56

El Paso, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 0.71 18.2 0.52

Erie, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 0.80 22.3 0.84

Eugene-Springfield, OR................................. 32.6 0.97 33.8 0.98

Evansville, IN-KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 0.97 30.1 0.91

Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 2.28 29.2 2.06

Fargo, ND-MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 1.15 18.3 0.99

Farmington, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 1.62 26.5 1.62

Fayetteville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 0.91 27.4 0.99

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.0 0.84 32.6 0.89

Flagstaff, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 1.38 24.0 1.67

Flint, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 0.85 25.8 0.69

Florence, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.6 1.40 26.7 1.15

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 1.42 29.6 1.26

Fond du Lac, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 1.03 20.7 1.20

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 1.19 26.2 1.01

Fort Smith, AR-OK..................................... 37.6 1.12 38.0 1.04

Fort Wayne, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.1 0.79 25.2 0.62

Fresno, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.9 0.64 21.3 0.54

Gadsden, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 1.82 34.1 1.64

Gainesville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 1.42 28.1 1.33

Gainesville, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 1.07 27.4 1.22

Glens Falls, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.4 1.34 23.5 1.53

Goldsboro, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 1.76 30.3 1.36

Grand Forks, ND-MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 1.19 19.7 1.27

Grand Junction, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 1.50 32.7 1.84

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 0.57 24.0 0.57

Great Falls, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 1.76 32.0 1.66

Greeley, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5 1.05 27.9 1.21

Green Bay, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.2 0.80 19.9 0.70

Greensboro-High Point, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 0.69 25.9 0.62

Greenville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 1.56 25.1 1.34

Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 0.73 27.0 0.76

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS..................................... 33.6 1.42 31.2 1.32

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 1.11 30.0 1.03

Hanford-Corcoran, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 1.02 22.1 1.45

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 0.65 22.2 0.65

Harrisonburg, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.1 1.84 23.0 1.51

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4 0.52 18.7 0.42

Hattiesburg, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 1.81 31.2 1.74

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 0.90 30.6 0.93

Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 2.62 29.3 2.04

Holland-Grand Haven, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.2 0.96 21.0 0.83

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 0.45 17.5 0.49

Hot Springs, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.1 2.16 38.6 1.82

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 1.30 25.3 1.18

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 0.26 24.0 0.27

See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau 23

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.9 1.01 31.5 1.12

Huntsville, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 1.00 29.7 0.86

Idaho Falls, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.9 1.38 27.3 1.59

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.0 0.42 26.9 0.41

Iowa City, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 1.21 20.1 1.13

Ithaca, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8 1.60 22.0 1.91

Jackson, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 1.17 29.6 1.31

Jackson, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 0.93 26.8 0.93

Jackson, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 1.63 29.3 1.48

Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.7 0.53 31.4 0.50

Jacksonville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 1.48 26.1 1.35

Janesville, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 1.39 25.2 1.15

Jefferson City, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.9 1.38 27.5 1.48

Johnson City, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 1.31 32.2 1.26

Johnstown, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 1.07 17.3 1.00

Jonesboro, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 1.51 33.8 1.36

Joplin, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 1.15 35.8 0.98

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 0.92 26.3 0.82

Kankakee-Bradley, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 1.42 24.1 1.40

Kansas City, MO-KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 0.37 27.3 0.33

Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 0.98 26.3 0.99

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0 1.07 29.0 0.99

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 1.04 31.4 0.88

Kingston, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 0.96 24.5 1.14

Knoxville, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 0.68 30.6 0.69

Kokomo, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 1.65 31.8 1.27

La Crosse, WI-MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 1.23 18.6 1.09

Lafayette, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.9 1.33 26.0 1.28

Lafayette, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 1.09 24.3 1.15

Lake Charles, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 1.30 31.1 1.34

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.0 1.56 42.3 1.75

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 0.81 32.0 0.79

Lancaster, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.7 0.63 19.5 0.54

Lansing-East Lansing, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 0.78 24.5 0.64

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 1.26 14.1 1.30

Las Cruces, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 1.34 23.6 1.31

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 0.54 29.7 0.48

Lawrence, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.7 1.96 26.1 1.86

Lawton, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.1 1.67 34.0 1.43

Lebanon, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 1.44 23.1 1.02

Lewiston, ID-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 2.06 36.6 1.83

Lewiston-Auburn, ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 1.79 27.2 1.59

Lexington-Fayette, KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 0.74 28.7 0.70

Lima, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 1.35 26.1 1.63

Lincoln, NE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 0.98 21.2 0.89

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6 0.72 32.4 0.66

Logan, UT-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 1.22 18.0 1.17

Longview, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 1.13 33.3 1.25

Longview, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.6 1.94 36.5 1.54

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 0.15 17.0 0.14

See footnotes at end of table.
24 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.1 0.50 29.3 0.48

Lubbock, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 1.24 29.6 1.07

Lynchburg, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 1.10 27.1 1.06

Macon, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.3 1.38 29.8 1.24

Madera-Chowchilla, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.1 1.80 26.4 1.67

Madison, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 0.64 19.0 0.60

Manchester-Nashua, NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 0.80 21.7 0.70

Manhattan, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 1.43 23.4 1.67

Mankato-North Mankato, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 1.27 17.7 1.13

Mansfield, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 1.61 27.9 1.30

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 0.79 15.0 0.73

Medford, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.2 1.45 36.2 1.37

Memphis, TN-MS-AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0 0.53 27.4 0.45

Merced, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.2 1.21 20.3 1.19

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL................. 26.7 0.27 24.1 0.27

Michigan City-La Porte, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 1.58 29.4 1.23

Midland, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 1.52 30.0 1.67

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 0.39 18.5 0.40

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 0.24 18.3 0.21

Missoula, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 1.88 25.8 1.67

Mobile, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 0.96 30.6 1.00

Modesto, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 0.88 24.3 0.80

Monroe, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 1.51 30.7 1.33

Monroe, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 1.35 26.0 1.38

Montgomery, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 1.02 29.7 0.82

Morgantown, WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 1.39 23.6 1.44

Morristown, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5 1.70 35.3 1.54

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.3 1.30 31.6 1.47

Muncie, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3 1.56 34.4 1.65

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.4 1.09 29.6 1.21

Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 1.38 32.1 1.27

Napa, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.4 1.29 25.6 1.55

Naples-Marco Island, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9 1.07 28.3 1.11

Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro—Franklin, TN . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 0.53 29.5 0.43

New Haven-Milford, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 0.60 17.9 0.54

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 0.56 24.1 0.51

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . 15.8 0.11 14.2 0.09

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 1.02 25.6 1.01

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL........................ 32.1 0.73 31.4 0.61

Norwich-New London, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 1.03 22.7 0.95

Ocala, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.5 1.22 35.7 1.05

Ocean City, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 1.78 22.5 1.37

Odessa, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 1.69 30.5 1.65

Ogden-Clearfield, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 0.74 24.3 0.67

Oklahoma City, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 0.48 32.0 0.46

Olympia, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 1.13 31.0 1.01

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 0.52 22.3 0.52

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1 0.48 26.7 0.44

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 1.06 21.4 1.11

Owensboro, KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 1.63 29.3 1.53

See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau 25

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 0.58 22.1 0.54

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 0.72 32.9 0.68

Palm Coast, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 2.13 31.7 1.98

Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . 36.7 1.89 36.9 1.53

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 1.21 30.0 1.36

Pascagoula, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 1.92 34.5 1.47

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6 0.89 33.7 0.80

Peoria, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 0.75 25.8 0.83

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 0.18 17.8 0.16

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.1 0.30 26.5 0.26

Pine Bluff, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5 1.73 36.8 1.86

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 0.28 19.2 0.26

Pittsfield, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 1.52 21.6 1.12

Pocatello, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 1.64 30.1 1.86

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 0.71 25.4 0.58

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 0.41 27.3 0.37

Port St. Lucie, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 0.97 31.7 1.07

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 0.66 18.4 0.56

Prescott, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3 1.58 40.1 1.47

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 0.47 18.4 0.41

Provo-Orem, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 0.62 17.3 0.73

Pueblo, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.0 1.33 29.6 1.25

Punta Gorda, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.0 1.57 36.8 1.55

Racine, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 1.12 20.9 1.04

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8 0.53 23.0 0.46

Rapid City, SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 1.51 29.0 1.61

Reading, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 0.81 22.3 0.70

Redding, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.7 1.19 36.4 1.39

Reno-Sparks, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.5 0.98 33.9 0.87

Richmond, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 0.50 24.6 0.42

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 0.38 24.2 0.26

Roanoke, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 1.02 29.1 1.07

Rochester, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 0.94 16.1 0.81

Rochester, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 0.50 19.9 0.43

Rockford, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 0.94 26.1 0.76

Rocky Mount, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 1.43 27.2 1.22

Rome, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.9 2.22 30.5 1.80

Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 0.42 25.6 0.37

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 1.13 22.4 0.96

St. Cloud, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 0.82 15.6 0.94

St. George, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 1.75 30.4 1.69

St. Joseph, MO-KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 1.40 32.2 1.48

St. Louis, MO-IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.9 0.31 24.6 0.27

Salem, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 0.96 31.8 0.81

Salinas, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 0.73 20.5 0.81

Salisbury, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.1 1.49 28.3 1.42

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 0.54 23.8 0.49

San Angelo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 1.97 31.5 1.66

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 0.39 25.5 0.37

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 0.32 21.8 0.28

See footnotes at end of table.
26 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

Sandusky, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 2.00 27.1 1.51

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 0.25 17.7 0.23

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 0.34 15.4 0.33

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 1.05 29.1 0.89

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 1.01 22.3 0.71

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 1.12 25.4 0.98

Santa Fe, NM......................................... 29.1 1.56 27.8 1.43

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA............................... 26.3 0.82 27.2 0.69

Savannah, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 0.89 26.6 0.82

Scranton—Wilkes-Barre, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 0.57 17.5 0.58

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.4 0.28 24.9 0.29

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.0 1.35 31.9 1.56

Sheboygan, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 1.31 18.9 1.04

Sherman-Denison, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.7 1.56 39.5 1.38

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 0.98 31.9 0.96

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 1.21 22.9 1.25

Sioux Falls, SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 0.87 19.5 0.91

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 0.91 26.6 0.86

Spartanburg, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0 1.16 27.5 1.08

Spokane, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 0.72 29.7 0.87

Springfield, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 1.17 28.6 0.93

Springfield, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 0.62 20.3 0.54

Springfield, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 0.97 32.2 0.97

Springfield, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 1.48 29.9 1.18

State College, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 1.22 18.2 1.07

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 1.34 27.1 1.46

Stockton, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 0.66 23.0 0.59

Sumter, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.7 2.16 24.3 1.54

Syracuse, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 0.65 20.0 0.53

Tallahassee, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.9 1.01 30.1 0.97

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 0.37 31.0 0.31

Terre Haute, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 1.28 33.0 1.39

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 1.78 36.8 1.76

Toledo, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.1 0.67 25.6 0.60

Topeka, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 1.10 29.3 0.95

Trenton-Ewing, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 0.99 14.7 0.73

Tucson, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 0.65 29.3 0.55

Tulsa, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 0.51 33.4 0.39

Tuscaloosa, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 1.25 27.1 1.18

Tyler, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 1.23 30.7 1.16

Utica-Rome, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 0.93 19.3 0.80

Valdosta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8 1.72 29.6 1.30

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 0.94 26.1 0.85

Victoria, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0 1.88 27.3 1.54

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 1.38 22.2 1.40

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 0.48 26.6 0.39

Visalia-Porterville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 1.00 22.0 0.85

Waco, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5 1.12 30.6 1.14

Warner Robins, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 1.99 31.4 1.79

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4 0.21 18.0 0.19

See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau 27

Appendix Table F.

Percentage of Ever-Married Men and Women 15 Years Old and Over That Had Married Two 

or More Times by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2008–20121—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area

Percent married two or more times

Men Women

Percent Margin of error2 Percent Margin of error2

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 1.19 22.9 1.02

Wausau, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 0.95 19.4 0.86

Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 1.65 27.8 1.48

Wheeling, WV-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 1.11 25.8 1.08

Wichita, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.3 0.67 30.3 0.63

Wichita Falls, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 1.26 32.7 1.32

Williamsport, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9 1.28 25.7 1.29

Wilmington, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 1.07 29.2 1.03

Winchester, VA-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 1.66 29.5 1.50

Winston-Salem, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8 0.83 26.7 0.73

Worcester, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 0.66 17.8 0.48

Yakima, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 1.39 28.3 1.17

York-Hanover, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 0.76 25.0 0.72

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 0.66 24.8 0.60

Yuba City, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 1.50 30.7 1.46

Yuma, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 1.31 28.0 1.45

1

 This table includes people living in households and group quarters. 2

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error 

is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008–2012.