In the united states, which of the following statements about ethnicity and marriage is correct?

Marriage looks a lot different today in many ways than in years past. As our nation becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, so are married couples.

The percentage of married-couple households that are interracial or interethnic grew across the United States from 7.4 to 10.2 percent from 2000 to 2012-2016. This change varied across states and counties and for specific interracial/interethnic combinations.

There are seven types of interracial/interethnic married-couple combinations that make up 95.1 percent of all such married couples. The largest of these is non-Hispanic whites married to Hispanics, which increased in 43.2 percent of counties. In contrast, just 3.0 percent of counties showed an increase in the percentage of married-couple households that were non-Hispanic whites married to non-Hispanic American Indians or Alaska Natives.

In the united states, which of the following statements about ethnicity and marriage is correct?

Where the Growth Happened

All states experienced an increase in the percentage of interracial and interethnic married-couple households from 2000 to 2012-2016.

  • Two states, Hawaii and Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia increased by 4.34 percentage points or more.
  • Nine states, located mostly in the West and the Mid-Atlantic region, increased by 3.34 to 4.33 percentage points.
  • Seventeen states increased by 2.40 to 3.33 percentage points.
  • The remaining 22 states increased by less than 2.40 percentage points.

While the percentage of married-couple households that are interracial/interethnic increased overall, this varied by county.

In the united states, which of the following statements about ethnicity and marriage is correct?

Brittany Rico, Rose M. Kreider and Lydia Anderson are family demographers in the Census Bureau’s Fertility and Family Statistics Branch.


Our email newsletter is sent out on the day we publish a story. Get an alert directly in your inbox to read, share and blog about our newest stories.

Families and Living Arrangements


This case challenges the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), a federal statute that defines marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Plaintiff Edith Windsor who shared her life with her late spouse, Thea Spyer, for 44 years, filed the lawsuit against the federal government on Nov. 9, 2010 for refusing to recognize their marriage. Windsor and Spyer were married in Canada in 2007, and were considered married by their home state of New York. Spyer died in 2009. Due to DOMA's discriminatory policies, Windsor was not able to claim the estate tax marital deduction that is available when the surviving spouse is of the opposite sex.

The lawsuit seeks to have section 3 of DOMA declared unconstitutional and to obtain a refund of the federal estate tax that Windsor was forced to pay following her spouse's death. The lawsuit was filed with the assistance of the ACLU, NYCLU, and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Windsor was the sole beneficiary of Spyer's estate. Because they were married, Spyer's estate normally would have passed to her spouse without any tax. But because DOMA refuses to recognize otherwise valid marriages of same-sex couples, Spyer's estate had to pay more than $350,000 in federal estate taxes. Earlier this year, Windsor requested a full refund from the government. The IRS rejected that claim, citing DOMA. The lawsuit argues that DOMA violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution because it recognizes marriages of heterosexual couples, but not of same-sex couples, despite the fact that New York State treats all marriages the same.

In February 2011, the Obama administration concluded that Section 3 of DOMA -- which bars the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of same-sex couples -- is unconstitutional and that the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the discriminatory law in court.

On April 18, 2011, the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives moved to intervene in the lawsuit and vowed to preserve DOMA. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2011. In an amicus brief filed on July 26, 2011, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman asserted that DOMA violates lesbian and gay couples' right to equal protection under the law. On June 6, 2012, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones ruled that section three of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutionally discriminates against married same-sex couples. The ruling joined four other federal courts that have declared DOMA unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the lower court on Oct. 18, 2012. The appeals court held that government discrimination against lesbians and gay men is now assumed to be unconstitutional and that DOMA's defenders could not offer any good reason for treating married same-sex couples differently from all other married couples. This is the first federal appeals court decision to decide that government discrimination against gay people gets a more exacting level of judicial review, called “heightened scrutiny.”

On Dec. 7, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case. Oral argument occurred March 27, 2013. In a landmark decision issued on June 27, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: “The history of DOMA's enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.” 

S.D.N.Y., Index No. 10 CV 8435 (direct) 

National origin discrimination involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).

National origin discrimination also can involve treating people unfavorably because they are married to (or associated with) a person of a certain national origin.

Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are the same national origin.

National Origin Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

National Origin & Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person because of his or her national origin. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's national origin, accent or ethnicity. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

National Origin & Employment Policies/Practices

The law makes it illegal for an employer or other covered entity to use an employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of national origin, if it has a negative impact on people of a certain national origin and is not job-related or necessary to the operation of the business.

An employer can only require an employee to speak fluent English if fluency in English is necessary to perform the job effectively. An "English-only rule", which requires employees to speak only English on the job, is only allowed if it is needed to ensure the safe or efficient operation of the employer's business and is put in place for nondiscriminatory reasons.

An employer may not base an employment decision on an employee's foreign accent, unless the accent seriously interferes with the employee's job performance.

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract. Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility.

IRCA also prohibits retaliation against individuals for asserting their rights under the Act, or for filing a charge or assisting in an investigation or proceeding under IRCA.

IRCA's nondiscrimination requirements are enforced by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER). IER may be reached at:

1-800-255-7688 (voice for employees/applicants), 1-800-237-2515 (TTY for employees/applicants), 1-800-255-8155 (voice for employers), or 1-800-362-2735 (TTY for employers), or