this interview. This was a case of answering based on the respondent’s perception of the legal status of
his relationship.
Another related situation occurred with a male respondent in an opposite‐sex domestic partnership who
reported his legal marital status (never married for himself, divorced for his partner) because he said
that a domestic partnership is not a marital status. He took the question wording seriously and
answered accordingly.
The final case in which the respondent’s report was inconsistent with his actual status was a gay
respondent who was in a civil union and reported “divorced” for himself and “never married” for his
partner. This occurred because he did not see the term “civil union” in the new response category. He
noticed the new category, but did not see the part of the category that applied to him.
The inconsistencies in reporting of the legal status of these respondents resulted in inconsistent
reporting across the two question versions for only one of them. The respondent who was married in
Canada marked “now married” in the version with the follow‐up question. Even though the marriage is
not legally recognized in this country, this category was closer to the truth than his only other option,
“never married.” Thus, in one version he demoted his status to one that he thought was more legal
even though it wasn’t true; in the other version he answered correctly ‐‐ even though he thought he
shouldn’t ‐‐ because it was the closest option. In the other three cases, the domestic partnership or civil
union was reported in the follow‐up question and the respondent’s actual marital status was reported in
the first part of the question. When respondents who answered this question series initially were asked
whether they thought these questions adequately captured their status, they generally said yes; they
were able to report their domestic partnership in the follow‐up question, and if they were not
registered, they were able to report that they were partnered with someone in the household.
16