Gay and Lesbian Family Life: Risk, Resilience, and Rising Expectations PDF

Chapter 8 Gay and Lesbian Family Life Risk, Resilience, and Rising Expectations Robert‑Jay Green I magine a society in which for over 200 years: Heterosexuals were forbidden from having any kind of romantic love relationships and prohibit...

Chapter 8 Gay and Lesbian Family Life Risk, Resilience, and Rising Expectations Robert‑Jay Green I magine a society in which for over 200 years: Heterosexuals were forbidden from having any kind of romantic love relationships and prohibited from getting married. Their sexual relationships were illegal and punishable by incarceration or death. They were denied employment or fired merely for being heterosexual. They were ostracized from their families, peer groups, and religious communities if their heterosexuality became known. Given the above scenario, in what shape would heterosexuals’ relationships be now? In what shape would the entire society be now? I offer this analogy to help readers understand that much of what is unique about gay and lesbian family life is an outgrowth of the historical context in which the majority of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people were born and came of age in American society.1 These social constraints dominated the lives and relationships of gay and lesbian people throughout recorded history in most societies worldwide, and laws codifying them remained in force in various parts of the United States until as recently as 2003, when the Supreme Court finally decriminalized homosexuality. In fact, with that decriminalization and the advent of same-sex marriage in several states since 2004, large numbers of gay and lesbian people in the United States have literally gone from being “outlaws” to “in-laws” in their lifetimes. Despite recent signs of equal treatment as this chapter is being written (June, 2011), major obstacles threatening the success of lesbian and gay family relationships still remain: 172  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 173 Employment discrimination. In most states and under the federal statutes governing employment, gay and lesbian people still are not protected from arbitrary discrimination in employment, housing, public accommoda- tions, and credit. Thus, the majority of gays and lesbians in the United States have no legal recourse if they are denied loans, jobs, or housing, or are sum- marily fired by their employers simply for being gay or lesbian. Many social scientists and mental health professionals mistakenly seem to think gay and lesbian people are somehow protected from such discrimination under the federal Civil Rights Act in the same way that people are protected from dis- crimination based on race, gender, national origin, and religion. However, as of this writing, gays and lesbians have no legal protections against these forms of discrimination under federal law or in most states. Bullying of gay and lesbian youth. The vast majority of states still do not have laws protecting gay and lesbian youth from harassment and bullying in schools. The small group of states that do have such laws generally have very weak implementation and resort mainly to sending copies of the law to school superintendents, who may or may not do anything more with the infor- mation than send it on to school principals, who in turn may only file it away. The majority of self-­identified gay and lesbian youth report significant levels of verbal harassment or physical bullying, with most of it occurring at school (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006). Same-sex marriage and other legalized couple statuses in the United States. As of June, 2011, only 6 states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia have laws permitting same-sex marriages, whereas 44 states do not. Eight states provide broad recognition of same-sex relationships, affording them the same legal rights as marriages within the state. These include Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, and New Jersey, which permit “civil unions” for same-sex couples as well as California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, which allow com- prehensive “domestic partnerships” for same-sex couples. Another 4 states (Colorado, Maine, Wisconsin, and Maryland) provide more limited relation- ship recognition to same-sex couples. Of the 44 states that do not perform same-sex marriage, 41 expressly prohibit it either through state constitutional amendments or statutes defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Of 31 states that have held a public referendum on this issue, all have rejected same-sex marriage. At the national level, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) pre- vents the federal government of the United States from recognizing same-sex marriages performed anywhere. Among the most serious consequences of DOMA, surviving same-sex spouses or partners are denied the federal social security benefits and inheritance tax benefits (and for federal employees, pen- sion benefits) that are granted to surviving heterosexual spouses. These exclu- sions place a large segment of the older gay and lesbian population at a dis- advantage. The impact can be especially severe because many of them were 174 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES “disowned” by their families of origin after coming out, and most do not have adult children who can help support them financially. Parental custody rights. The majority of states do not allow same-sex partners to adopt one another’s biological children (so called “second-­parent adoptions”) regardless of how involved the nonbiological parents have been in planning for or raising their shared children since birth. In these states, the nonbiological parent and child are legal strangers to one another in the eyes of the law. This leaves the child in jeopardy of being taken into permanent state custody or of custody being given to family members other than the nonbio- logical parent if the child’s biological parent dies or becomes incapacitated. Also in these families—even if the nonbiological parent has been function- ing as the child’s primary caregiver since birth—the nonbiological parent and child can legally be denied access to each other by the biological parent if the couple separates. Our society is just now beginning to understand the psychological toll this context of discrimination has taken on gay and lesbian people and on their couple and family relationships. The impact can be seen not only in the most overt forms of persecution, such as social rejection, bullying, blackmail, firings, arrests, assaults, involuntary psychiatric placements to change sexual orientations, or murder. The long history of discrimination also has had an insidious effect in terms of unconscious repression of the self and of aspira- tions for the future. Older generations of gay and lesbian adults who internal- ized society’s negative stereotypes felt unworthy of, and were unable even to imagine having, what society considered “normal” lives. Until only relatively recently, living as gay or lesbian meant having to enter a secret society that existed mostly at night, apart from the rest of society, and it remains that way in many rural and conservative communities. The core of this chapter concerns the unique existential position of gay and lesbian people in American society and how that position influences child, couple, and family functioning. In the sections below, I first consider the con- cept of “normality” in a society characterized by discrimination from some quarters and acceptance from others. Then I describe gay and lesbian issues in the major “vectors” of family life: families of origin, same-sex couples, and lesbian and gay parents and their children. I conclude with some thoughts about “relational ambiguity” in the lives of gay and lesbian people, and the psychological impact of recent political events around same-sex marriage. “Normal” in Sociocultural Context “Normal” is in the eye of the beholder, and all beholders are in the grip of larger sociopolitical, religious, and cultural narratives that influence what they can see and how they interpret it (see Walsh, Chapter 1, and McGoldrick & Ashton, Chapter 11, this volume). As illustrated by the following real-world  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 175 exchange between a mother and her gay son in the process of coming out, invoking the “normal” may also be a control strategy, a means of demanding compliance with heterocentric conceptions of the “good” and “true” way to be: Mother: Don’t you want to be normal like other people? Gay son: I don’t really care about being “normal” like other people. My goal was never to be normal. I just want to be happy! Mother: Well then how can you possibly be happy if you’re not normal like other people? I just want you to be happy. The term “normal” is thus a historically loaded one for many gay and lesbian people. Too often, it has been used against them by their families, workplaces, the courts, the health care system, organized religions, and mental health professionals. From the perspective of the social sciences and family systems theory, criteria for “normality” of a gay or lesbian individual or a same-sex relationship have to be defined in terms of effective coping or adaptation in a specific sociocultural niche at a particular point in history. Since the early 1970s, the major American professional organizations in psychiatry, psychology, and social work have viewed being gay or lesbian as a normal human variation. Most of the national psychiatric associations in the Western hemisphere have followed suit. More recently, in 2001, the Chinese Psychiatric Association also removed homosexuality as a category of mental illness. The prevailing view of the psychiatric establishments in these coun- tries is that homosexuality is an expectable variation in human populations, much like left-­handedness, which characterizes a minority of the population. Just as left-­handedness was regarded over the centuries as a sign of evil and possession by the devil (from Latin sinestre for left) and children were forced by parents and teachers to become right-­handed, homosexuality is increas- ingly regarded not as an evil or an illness but as being within the normal range of human diversity. There also is evidence that homosexual behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom, in species as varied as flocks of birds and flocks of human parishioners (Roselli & Balthazart, 2011). From an ethological perspective, being “opposed” to homosexuality (as some social commentators proudly proclaim themselves to be) is a little like being “opposed” to the migration of birds. Homosexuality and bisexuality have characterized a portion of the population in all human societies for all recorded time, and they always will. A degree of sexual orientation diversity is built into the species. Most important is that having a same-sex relational orientation is not problematic in and of itself. It is “instinctive” and thus “normal” for the indi- viduals who have such orientations, and ordinarily it is experienced as an integral, “natural” part of the self. Gay and lesbian people do not “decide” or “choose” their sexual orientations any more than heterosexuals “decide” to be heterosexual. People either intrinsically know or discover their sexual 176 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES orientations through experience and reflection. Other people’s intrusive reac- tions to this expectable human variation complicate the lives of gay and les- bian people. In fact, the single common thread in the experience of gay and lesbian people is that they all are subject to some amount of antigay prejudice and discrimination in their environments. To the extent there is such a thing as a gay and lesbian “community” with its own cultural norms and behavior pat- terns, it evolved over many decades as part of a secret society that protected its members against physical, economic, legal, and social threats to survival and well-being. However, other than this shared vulnerability to discrimina- tion, any two individuals within the gay and lesbian population may have no more in common with each other than any two heterosexual or left-­handed individuals have in common with one another. Most important to bear in mind is that there is enormous variability now in the exposure of gay and lesbian people to prejudice and discrimination depending on when the individuals were born (generational cohort), where they reside, and their cultural group memberships (including intersections of ethnic, racial, religious, and social class factors within a given society). It therefore has become much harder to make generalizations about the lives and relationships of gay and lesbian people, especially in a multicultural, pluralis- tic nation like the United States. Over the last 10–15 years, most countries in Western Europe and many metropolitan areas of North America have become increasingly accepting of gay and lesbian people. Most other nations are still in great flux over their views of sexual orientation and gender identity (Smith, 2011). Some outcomes of these shifting attitudes have been unexpected, such as the introduction of legalized same-sex marriage in Spain, Portugal, and Mexico City, and of civil unions in Ireland and Colombia, all of whose populations are almost entirely Catholic (a religion whose hierarchical leadership denounces homosexual behavior as a sin). Still, many gay and lesbian people in rural and immigrant communities in North America—and most gay and lesbian people throughout all of Asia, the Middle East, most of Latin America, most of Eastern Europe, and almost all of Africa—­continue to lead entirely hidden lives, posing as heterosexual in public in order to survive physically and economically in their countries. In nations ruled by authoritarian governments (especially those with funda- mentalist religious ideologies), gay and lesbian people often live in terror of state-­sponsored executions officially mandated by laws and are vulnerable to uninvestigated “extrajudicial killings” and “disappearances” by government security forces, vigilante groups, and sometimes even family members who seek to remove the source of the family’s “shame” by murdering a gay and lesbian offspring or sibling—so-­called “honor” killings. Over 76 countries worldwide officially continue to criminalize homo- sexuality.2 In five countries, homosexuality is still a crime punishable by exe- cution—Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, plus some parts  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 177 of Nigeria and Somalia. In many countries, the predominant coping strategy among gay and lesbian people is to get married to a person of the other sex and to remain completely closeted from one’s family members and people in all other contexts except, perhaps, other trusted gay and lesbian individuals in very clandestine situations. Thus, unlike certain Western European and North American middle-class contexts, where coming-out to family members and at work is frequently con- sidered a sign of mental health, maturity, assertiveness, and “differentiation of self,” coming out publicly in other countries is tantamount to committing physical or social suicide. It still is the case that most gay and lesbian people in the world are vulnerable to severe forms of discrimination throughout their entire lives, and only a minority of the world’s gay and lesbian population is enjoying relative safety and acceptance. In this sense, the forms of persecution versus protection in an individual’s social environment greatly influence what can be considered adaptive or “normal.” One must guard against assuming that successful coping in one cultural niche can be generalized to others, even across subcultures within a given city. Rising Expectations The American Community Survey of 2005 revealed approximately 776,943 same-sex couple households in the United States (Romero, Baumle, Badgett, & Gates, 2007). Among these cohabiting couples, approximately 20% were raising children, and the percentage of same-sex couples of color raising chil- dren was even higher (about one-third). In fact, most observers suspect that the number of same-sex couples in the United States may be much higher that the 2005 count, because respondents (especially those in more conservative areas of the country) may still have been reluctant at that time to reveal infor- mation about their sexual orientations to the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The recent 2010 U.S. Census counted same-sex marriages for the first time, and demographers are eagerly awaiting the results. Preliminary figures suggest a 50% increase in self-­identified same sex couples between the 2000 and 2010 census (CNN, 2011). What do gay and lesbian people want now in terms of public policies and their couple and family relationships for the future? In a survey of the legal and political priorities of 768 gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, Egan, Edel- man, and Sherrill (2008) found interesting generational differences. For adults age 65 and older, highest priorities were laws against hate crimes, followed by workplace discrimination protections. However, for those ages 18–25, high- est priorities were marriage rights, followed by parental and adoption rights. These findings seem to reflect the two age groups’ different experiences his- torically. When gay and lesbian people who are over age 65 first came out, it was inconceivable that marriage or parenting would be available to them, and 178 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES their major concerns revolved around being physically harmed or fired from their jobs for being gay or lesbian. The younger generation, by contrast, seems to have taken a giant leap forward in terms of rising expectations for equality, striving for same-sex marriage rights and for the same opportunities to adopt or conceive children (via alternative insemination or surrogacy) that hetero- sexual married couples enjoy. For example, in a study of gay and lesbian youth, D’Augelli, Rendina, Sinclaire, and Grossman (2007) interviewed 133 self-­identified urban and suburban young people in the New York Metropolitan area (50 females, 83 males, ages 16–22; 42% Hispanic, 39% people of color). In this sample, 92% of the lesbian youth and 82% of gay male youth reported that they expected to be in a long-term monogamous relationship within 10 years. Furthermore, 78% of the lesbian youth and 61% of gay male youth said it was “very” or “extremely” likely they would marry a same-sex partner, if legally possible. In terms of parenting, 66% of the lesbian youth and 52% of the gay male youth said it was “very” or “extremely” likely they would be raising children in the future. These high percentages of youth anticipating marriage and parent- hood would have been unthinkable to older generations of gays and lesbians, who could not in their wildest dreams have imagined a time when such oppor- tunities would be available. In this regard, despite indications of continuing prejudice and discrimi- nation against lesbian and gay people, there is abundant evidence of change in the direction of greater acceptance by Americans. For example, in a recent ABC News/Washington Post public opinion poll (Langer, 2011), 53% of the American public said that it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry, and the trend in favor is rapidly accelerating for all demographic groups. Moreover, the recent polls are showing a strong effect of age, with about two-­thirds of people younger than age 40 in favor of same-sex marriage and about two-­thirds of those older than 50 opposed to same-sex marriage. Despite a majority of Americans now saying that same-sex marriage should be legal, it is important to keep in mind that residents in the largest met- ropolitan areas of the United States tend to be more accepting of same-sex mar- riage than the rest of the country. The 53% majority of all Americans in favor of same-sex marriage is not reflected by similar majorities in any but a handful of states. Given that marriage laws are state-based, we are not likely to see same-sex marriage permitted in most states anytime soon, unless the Supreme Court of the United States rules that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In other opinion polling, there is recent evidence that most Americans (68%) now say their definition of “family” includes same-sex couples raising children (Crary, 2010). Overall, it is clear that we are witnessing a gradual acceptance of gay and lesbian couple and family relations in the United States. This trend is likely to accelerate in the next 10–20 years as today’s youth come of age. In light of these changes, we must ask, “If what one came out to as a gay or lesbian person in the past was a secret society of mostly single, childless adults liv- ing socially in the shadows of society, how will it shape the lives of American  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 179 youth today to come out in a gay and lesbian community that is more inte- grated with the mainstream institutions of society, such as the public schools and the military?” How might an individual youth’s expectations that she or he probably will marry a same-sex partner someday and raise children affect her or his self-image, career choices, risk-­taking, and the gay and lesbian com- munity’s patterns of dating, “courtship,” mate selection, relationship stability, and monogamy? What will the “new normal” look like for the relationships of gay and lesbian people in the United States? Families of Origin Unlike members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups, children who eventually self-­identify as gay or lesbian rarely have parents or siblings who share their same sexual minority status. Being different from other family members in this fundamental way has a profound impact on the development of almost every gay and lesbian person. For example, because heterosexual parents have not suffered sexual orientation discrimination themselves, even the most well-­meaning among them are unable to provide the level of insight and anticipatory socialization that would prepare their child to cope specifi- cally with antigay prejudice or to resist internalizing that prejudice. By contrast, when children and parents both identify as members of the same minority group (e.g., African Americans, Jews, Muslims), the children are directly taught—and parents model—ways to counter society’s antipa- thy toward their group. Usually, minority parents and children are involved together in community institutions (often religious) that are instrumental in supporting children’s development of a positive minority racial/ethnic identity, and parents take a very protective stance regarding their children’s experi- ences of discrimination. However, the parents of future gay or lesbian children ordinarily are not even aware of their child’s sexual orientation and therefore are not likely to seek out community groups that would support the development of their child’s positive gay or lesbian identity. In some cases, rather than protecting their child against antigay prejudice, parents and siblings become the main perpetrators of aggressive discrimination against a gay or lesbian youth. Instead of taking their child’s side against prejudicial forces in the community and society at large, family members’ own antigay attitudes and behavior can become the greatest threats leading to physical or sexual abuse or ejec- tion of the child from the home. It is estimated, for example, that 40% of all homeless youth in the United States are LGBT, with many of them having been thrown out of their families’ homes or leaving after suffering family harassment or abuse because of their different sexual orientations or gender identities. In addition, large numbers of gay and lesbian adults in the United States, especially members of conservative religious families or immigrant families living in ethnic enclaves in the United States, still remain closeted from parents 180 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES and other relatives with strong antigay attitudes. They often feel they must either distance from family members to maintain secret couple relationships or relinquish couple commitments in order to stay closely connected with their families. As one illustration, a Mexican American lesbian born in the United States was not “out” to any of her family members, all of whom were born in rural Mexico. She was having serious problems in her couple relationship because of the large amount of time she was spending with these family members, and away from her partner. Just when she was strengthening her resolve to come out to her family, a 15-year-old male cousin remarked (in reaction to a televi- sion episode about gay people): “It’s a good thing there are no gay Chicanos. They would be such a disgrace to our race!” This seemingly casual remark by a 15-year-old boy crushed her intent to come out to her family. The resulting loss of hope by her partner quickly led to dissolution of their relationship. Similarly, most first-­generation and many second-­generation Asian Amer- ican gays and lesbians do not come out to their parents, usually because they fear disappointing their parents and bringing shame to the family’s reputation in the community. By the third generation after immigration, however, most Latino and Asian American offspring come out to their parents. Although, in fact, the majority of parents in the United States do not completely reject their children after disclosure of sexual orientation, the level of acceptance offspring receive after coming out is highly variable and usu- ally somewhat qualified (Herdt & Koff, 2000; Lasala, 2010; Savin-­Williams, 2001; Stone-Fish & Harvey, 2005). Siblings tend to be told first, then mothers, and lastly fathers, which parallels the degree of acceptance gay and lesbian people tend to receive from these family members. Initially, family members tend to be more rejecting than accepting, and the longer term outcome tends to be more akin to “tolerance” rather than affirmative “acceptance.” Fathers, in particular, tend to have difficulty accepting gay sons’ sexual orientations, and mothers often find themselves in a go-­between role. Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, and Sanchez (2009) found that even modest increases in family acceptance had a large positive impact on the mental health and substance use of gay and lesbian adolescents. Against this backdrop of mixed reactions from family members, gay and lesbian people frequently turn to their friends for greater levels of mutual sup- port and identification. Ideally, these friends and selected family members are woven together into a so-­called “family of choice”—an interconnected system of emotional and instrumental support over time (Weston, 1991). However, because of the higher likelihood of discrimination from various segments of their social networks, gay and lesbian people risk having less cohesive social support systems than heterosexuals. They have to be much more deliberate in their efforts to build an integrated system of social support and a sense of “community” in their lives, which many heterosexuals find in their religious congregations and their extended families (Green & Mitchell, 2008). This is especially true for gay and lesbian immigrants from traditional cultures, gay  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 181 and lesbian people of color, gay and lesbian interracial couples, and bisexual or transgender people. Members of these minority groups within the LGBT population often are subject to much higher levels of discrimination from their families and original communities, as well as from the majority white gay and lesbian community (Firestein, 2007; Fox, 2006; Laird & Green, 1996; and Lev, 2004, 2010). Same‑Sex Couples There is as much demographic and psychological diversity within the popu- lation of same-sex couples as there is within the population of heterosexual couples. In fact, knowing a couple’s sexual orientation conveys much less information than is often assumed. In many respects, same-sex couples may be more like heterosexual couples of their same social class, religious, racial/ ethnic, or occupational group than they are like same-sex couples from mark- edly different demographic groups, except for their common vulnerability to antigay prejudice. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not logical opposites. Counter- posing one against the other inevitably exaggerates their differences and mini- mizes their commonalities. Both same-sex and other-sex orientations are most accurately viewed as variations on a continuum of attractions and potential for love relationships. Furthermore, regardless of their sexual orientation, nobody is attracted to “all males” or “all females.” Thus, the term “sexual orientation” itself should rightfully be described as much more complex and fluid rather than reduced only to the biological sex of a desired partner or only to sexual as opposed to affiliative components of attraction. In fact, a more accurate term would be “sociosexual orientation” to connote closeness beyond purely sexual motivations. Research directly comparing same-sex and heterosexual couples reveals they are remarkably similar to each other on most dimensions (Kurdek, 2004; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Roisman, Clausell, Holland, Fortuna, & Elief, 2008; Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2008; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004, 2005). For example, regardless of the partners’ sexual orientations, the same set of factors tends to predict relationship quality and relationship lon- gevity across all types of couples: (1) placing more value on security, perma- nence, shared activities, and togetherness; (2) placing lower value on having separate activities and on personal autonomy; (3) higher expressiveness; (4) more perceived intrinsic rewards for being in the relationship; (5) fewer per- ceived attractive alternatives to the relationship; (6) more perceived barriers to ending the relationship; (7) less belief that disagreement is destructive; (8) higher trust in the partner—­viewing the partner as dependable; (9) greater closeness and flexibility; (10) better problem-­solving and conflict-­negotiation skills; (11) higher shared/egalitarian decision making; and (12) greater per- ceived social support from sources outside the relationship. 182 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES However, group comparison studies also suggest that same-sex couples (especially lesbian couples) have an advantage in escaping the traditional gen- der role divisions that make for power imbalances and dissatisfaction in many heterosexual relationships. Although not perfectly equal, same-sex couples tend to be markedly more equal in division of household labor and decision- ­making power than are heterosexual couples (Gotta et al., 2011). Furthermore, in research by Green, Bettinger, and Zacks (1996), lesbian couples described themselves as emotionally closer than gay male couples who, in turn, described themselves as emotionally closer than heterosexual married couples. Lesbian couples also reported the most flexibility in the way they handled rules and roles in the relationship, whereas heterosexual couples reported the least flex- ibility. Overall, high levels of closeness and flexibility were reported by 79% of lesbian couples and 56% of gay male couples, but by only 8% of heterosexual married couples. In contrast to old clinical stereotypes based on traditional gender role theory, lesbian couples were not characterized by dysfunctional fusion nor were gay male couples characterized by disengagement. Same-sex couples’ greater equality also was confirmed in studies by Gottman, Levinson, Gross, et al. (2003; Gottman, Levenson, Swanson, et al., 2003). Based on observations of couples interacting in conflict situations, these scientists found that same-sex couples were better at resolving disagree- ments. They approached problems from a position of peer equality, using “softer” (less aggressive and accusatorial) initiation of conflict discussions and more humor during the discussion to avoid escalation of hostilities. With married heterosexual couples, the researchers observed much more of a power struggle, with one partner being invalidated by the other. Other differences between lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples have emerged in the research. Despite the evidence that same-sex couples may be functioning better than heterosexual couples in terms of closeness and equal- ity within the relationship, same-sex relationships tend not to last as long as heterosexual marriages. For example, Green et al. (1996) found that even slightly lower levels of closeness, flexibility, and satisfaction in lesbian couples are likely to lead to separations over a 2-year period, whereas heterosexual couples may simply “tough it out” despite more substantial decreases in close- ness, flexibility, and satisfaction over longer periods of time. One explanation for this difference may be that because same-sex couples are less likely to be raising children together and to have a legalized status as a couple, they face fewer legal, financial, religious, and social barriers to ending their relation- ships. Thus, same-sex partners can more easily walk away from their relation- ships during inevitable periods of conflict or emotional distance. In contrast, heterosexual partners are more likely to feel locked into and remain in dis- satisfying couple relationships because of external social, legal, financial, reli- gious, and childrearing constraints and responsibilities. In the area of sexual behavior, gay male couples have reported much higher rates of nonmonogamous behavior and higher rates of having explicit nonmonogamous agreements than lesbian and heterosexual couples (Gotta et  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 183 al., 2011). Authors have speculated that these higher rates of reported nonmo- nogamy are the result of several factors: 1. Men are more likely to engage in nonmonogamy than women, and the composition of the gay couple (two males) doubles the likelihood that they have experienced nonmonogamy as a couple. 2. The legal and social penalties and lack of supports historically for ongoing gay male relationships promoted brief, anonymous sexual encounters rather than ongoing relationships, thus establishing norms favoring single status and a recreational view of sex in the gay male community. 3. In research studies, gay men may be much more willing than lesbians, heterosexual men, or heterosexual women to admit to nonmonoga- mous behavior. Several studies have shown that most of the nonmonogamy in gay male couples is by prior mutual agreement. Such extrarelational sex typically adheres to specifically agreed-upon parameters by the couple as to where, when, with whom, what activities, what frequency, and so on. This kind of “negotiated nonmonogamy” (Shernoff, 2006) does not involve lying, nor does it carry the implications of “betrayal” or “cheating” that the same behavior tends to have for heterosexual partners, who are more likely to hide and lie about their extrarelational affairs. One research project (Kurdek, 1988) that looked carefully into behavioral patterns among gay couples with nonmo- nogamy agreements found that these male partners actually had sex outside the relationship only rarely (80%) or never (9%). In contrast to findings about heterosexual couples’ affairs, several studies have shown that there is no asso- ciation between gay male partners’ nonmonogamy and their overall satisfac- tion or the duration of their relationships (Kurdek, 2004; Peplau, Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Recent research also shows that monogamy among gay male couples has increased markedly over the last 25 years (Gotta et al., 2011). About half of gay male couples report now that they have been monogamous, with the other half reporting one or more episodes of nonmonogamy by at least one of the partners since they met (Campbell, 2000). Also, in the area of sexuality, les- bian couples are reporting lower frequency of having sex than heterosexual or gay male couples (Gotta et al., in press; Peplau et al., 2004). Lack of sex is a common presenting problem of lesbian couples in therapy (Hall, 2004). Despite these notable differences pertaining to greater equality in same- sex couples, less monogamy among gay male couples, and less frequent sex in lesbian couples, the dynamics within lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual couples are remarkably similar. Regardless of couple type, the very same kinds of interactional patterns of closeness, equality of power, conflict resolution, openness of communication, and social support are associated with partners’ psychological well-being, couple satisfaction, and relationship stability. 184 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children The U.S. Census 2000 reported that 22% of gay male couples and 33% of lesbian couples were living with their children under 18 years of age (Simmons & O’Connell, 2003). Some of these children are progeny from former het- erosexual marriages that ended in divorce or from heterosexual nonmarital liaisons that otherwise led to pregnancy. However, there has been a dramatic rise in recent years of children being adopted (Brodzinsky, Green, & Katuzny, 2011) or being conceived through alternative reproductive technologies by intended parents who are openly lesbian or gay from the outset (Goldberg, 2009; Mitchell & Green, 2007). All such families must deal with issues inherent in the psychological (as opposed to merely biological) conception of a baby; establishing parental legit- imacy; gaining validation and support from families of origin and the greater community; and answering questions about the family’s structure with their children and other individuals in their social networks (Mitchell & Green, 2007). For openly gay and lesbian people, achieving parenthood requires a great deal of planning and intentionality. In addition, the legal fees and other expenses for adoption, alternative insemination for lesbians, or surrogacy for gay men always necessitate a level of organization and a financial commit- ment to becoming parents that is not usually required for heterosexual parents except for the minority who adopt or undergo fertility treatments. Thus, these children of openly lesbian and gay parents are always deeply wanted and never born by “accident.” Despite the increasing social visibility of gay and lesbian families, there are very few studies that deal with the experiences of gay fathers and their children. Most of the statistically controlled, quantitative research has focused on the experiences of lesbian-­headed families (Goldberg, 2009). A few stud- ies have explored the transition to parenthood and other variables for gay male parents (e.g., Bergman, Rubio, Green, & Padron, 2010; Mallon, 2004; Lewin, 2009), but most have focused on lesbian mothers because of their greater prevalence. The longest research study to date of children conceived by lesbian cou- ples through donor insemination is the 25-year National Longitudinal Les- bian Family Study (NLLFS; Gartrell & Bos, 2010). These families were stud- ied before the children were born (N = 154 lesbian parents) and again when the target children were 2-, 5-, 10-, and 17-years-old (with a 93% retention rate of participants). Below I present findings across these five data-­gathering points, because the results are so representative of what other researchers of lesbian and gay parenting have discovered. In terms of work and domestic responsibilities before the children were born, the couples established flexible work schedules in anticipation of child care demands. After having children, most mothers reduced their work hours or made other changes in their career commitments. When the children were 10 years old, most of the mothers managed their parenting and career  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 185 responsibilities satisfactorily. Most mothers sought legal protections for their children, including establishment of wills, powers of attorney for their chil- dren’s medical care, and second-­parent adoption by the lesbian mother who had no genetic link to the child. Compared to traditional heterosexual families, the lesbian mothers val- ued having two equally active, equally involved parents raising their children. This advantage continued throughout childhood and adolescence. Chil- drearing responsibilities, domestic chores, and income earning consistently remained equitably shared between the partners. They took turns engaging in full- or part-time employment to accommodate child care needs. This evi- dence of “degendered parenting” is consistent with findings in other studies that compared gay fathers or lesbian mothers to heterosexual parents. Same- sex couples are more likely to divide the breadwinning, household chore, and childrearing responsibilities equitably in the family than are heterosexual couples. In another study, gay male parents noted that this egalitarian divi- sion of parental responsibilities was decided by mutual agreement as opposed to defaulting to prescribed gender roles (Schacher, Auerbach, & Silverstein, 2005). Additionally, a study of gay fathers by McPherson (2003) indicated that fathers were more satisfied with their division of child care tasks than were their heterosexual counterparts. Before having children, most of the lesbian couples were worried about a decline in time and energy for their partners once the children were born. After having children, as the mothers’ lives became more child-­focused, most reported that childrearing was stressful for their relationships with their partners, and they had less time and energy for their relationships. This was accompanied by reports of sexual infrequency and greater relationship con- flict. When the children were 5 years old, almost one-third of the original par- ticipants had separated (a divorce rate comparable to heterosexual marriages), with 15% of the divorces occurring when the children were between 2 and 5 years old. In the McPherson (2003) study, gay fathers reported greater satis- faction with their couple relationships compared to heterosexual fathers. Regarding relationships with their families of origin before the child was born, most expectant mothers reported strong social support from their par- ents and families. Having a child enhanced the lesbian mothers’ relationships with their parents and increased their contact with them. Most grandparents were delighted with their grandchildren. It is noteworthy that the grandpar- ents’ openness about their daughter’s lesbian family steadily rose over time. Similarly, a study of gay fathers via surrogacy (Bergman et al., 2010) also reported this increase in familial support from both partners’ families of ori- gin across the transition to parenthood. Parents of gay fathers often were more supportive and approving than had been expected (Mallon, 2004; Schacher et al., 2005). An interesting finding about lesbians who became parents via alternative insemination is that even though the two mothers tended to share childrearing and household responsibilities much more equally than heterosexual parents, 186 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES the biological mother still tended to be significantly more involved in child care than the nonbiological mother (sometimes referred to as the “co-­mother”). In this regard, it is difficult to disentangle the influence of the symbolic impor- tance that lesbian mothers, families of origin, and society in general put on genetic relations versus the influence of pregnancy and breastfeeding by the biological mother on the parent–child relationships. Some observers of lesbian coparenting believe that breastfeeding demands in particular may establish patterns of greater biological mother–child closeness that may extend over time into other areas of parent–­infant and then parent–­toddler interaction. Despite the statistically greater involvement in child care of biological compared with nonbiological lesbian mothers, both female partners are still dramatically more equal than heterosexual couples in their division of child care responsibilities, primarily because most heterosexual fathers play a much less central role than heterosexual mothers in child care. Moreover, unlike in stepfamilies following divorce—where the stepparent is clearly considered an addition to a preexisting “procreative” family—lesbian coparents typically define themselves to each other and the child as the equally responsible, legiti- mate, “co-­creative” parents. Co-­mothers typically do not occupy the kind of secondary status that heterosexual stepparents sometimes do when it comes to making decisions concerning the child. In fact, many co-­mothers are the primary caregiving parent for the child. After having children, most lesbian mothers and gay fathers report a decline in socializing with their friends, and many report losing friendships with others who are not parents (a pattern also common for heterosexual parents). In fact, lesbian and gay parents say that most of their current friends are heterosexual parents with children the same age. For example, the NLLFS found that the lesbian mothers’ social network when the children were age 10 included more straight parents compared to before the children born or when the children were age 5, because of their children’s choices of peers. As the children grow older, their friendships determine who the focal family social- izes with, and the same tends to be true for families headed by heterosexual parents. Most lesbian parents also continued to be involved in lesbian support groups and social activities. Changes in social network composition associated with being parents also were evident among the gay fathers in Mallon’s (2004) study of adop- tive gay male parents and in Bergman et al.’s (2010) study of gay fathers via surrogacy. Gay fathers reported that their friendships ceased to be mainly among other gay and lesbian people, and became progressively more inclusive of heterosexual parents over time as their children’s school friendships played a greater role in the whole family’s socializing. In terms of psychological well-being, identity, and stigmatization, the NLLFS reported that prospective mothers were concerned about raising their children in an all-­female household and a homophobic world. Before the child’s birth, most of the mothers were planning to be open about their lesbian iden- tity to their children. The participants had been increasingly coming “out” at work (e.g., 93% were “out” at work when the child was 2 years old). In an  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 187 effort to reduce homophobia in their communities, the mothers also had been more active politically (e.g., 75% at child’s age 5) in educational initiatives to increase awareness and acceptance of diversity in human relationships. Almost all of the mothers made intentional efforts to connect their children with adult male relatives and friends, so that their children would have relationships with male adult figures throughout childhood and adolescence. With regard to the overall impact of having a child, most of the mothers expressed that having children was the most enjoyable and best thing that ever happened to them, and they noted that participating in their children’s growth and development was the most gratifying aspect of parenting. Similarly, gay fathers also spoke of a sense of personal fulfillment and pride in having chil- dren, and a new sense of commonality with heterosexual parents (Schacher et al., 2005). Bergman et al. (2010) found that gay fathers via surrogacy became significantly closer to their families of origin after the children were born and reported significantly increased self-­esteem as a result of becoming parents. Other aspects of transition to parenthood paralleled the experiences of both lesbian and heterosexual parents. Across all types of families with young chil- dren, the children’s needs, friendships, and school lives tend to organize and direct the whole family’s social and recreational life, and there seems to be no differences in this regard among families headed by lesbian, gay male, or heterosexual parents. Parenting Practices and Child Outcomes Myriad studies have explored developmental outcomes of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. The research literature from the United States (e.g., Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Patterson, 2005; Wainright & Patterson, 2006, 2008; Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004), Great Britain (e.g., Tasker & Golom- bok, 1997), and Scandinavia (e.g., Bos, van Balen, & van den Boom, 2007) consistently shows that children and adolescents raised by gay and lesbian par- ents function as well as those raised by heterosexual parents in terms of mental health outcomes and peer relations. For comprehensive reviews of this research see Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Crowl, Ahn, & Baker, 2008; Goldberg, 2009; Patterson, 2005, 2006; Tasker & Patterson, 2007). In contrast to the oft-­repeated false claim by antigay groups that children do better when raised by a heterosexual man and woman who are married to each other, there exists not a shred of credible social science evidence that children raised by married heterosexual mothers and fathers do better on any measure of well-being than children raised by lesbian or gay couples. All of the social science studies on this question actually converge on the conclu- sion that there are extremely few statistically significant differences in mental health outcomes, peer relations, academic achievement, gender conformity, or substance use between children and adolescents raised by lesbian parents compared with those raised by heterosexual parents. In the few instances in which significant differences have been obtained, the more desirable outcomes have occurred among children of lesbian parents 188 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES (Gartrell & Bos, 2010). For example, daughters of lesbian mothers seem to be somewhat more career-­oriented; sons of lesbian mothers seem to be less objectifying in their approach to romantic partners; and lesbian parents report being closer to their children and using less physical punishment (Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Tasker & Patterson, 2007). By late adolescence, the children in the Gartrell and Bos (2010) longitu- dinal study actually showed more overall psychosocial competence and fewer behavior problems than children raised by heterosexual parents. Although the children of lesbian parents do experience stigmatization (e.g., teasing) because of their parents’ sexual orientation, the negative effects of such experiences are mitigated by positive aspects of family functioning (Bos & Gartrell, 2010). Although one might expect that there would be fewer problems inte- grating lesbian and gay parent identities among more recent lesbian and gay parents, current research has documented continuing difficulties, especially for gay male parents. Several studies have described heterosexist gender role strain among gay men (e.g., Schacher et al., 2005). Gay fathers’ competence is fairly routinely doubted by a society that believes in the primacy of women in childrearing roles. Similarly, most gay men in previous generations grew up believing that they would never become parents. Many authors describe how gay fathers must negotiate a triple minority status by being both gay and male in the heterosexual parenting community (which is largely organized around heterosexual and female parents as primary caregivers) and by being fathers in the gay community (which is organized around being single or coupled without children). Just to give a local example, even in San Francisco, where one might expect the greatest level of support for gay fathers, the largest socializing and support group for middle-class parents of infants and toddlers is called “Golden Gate Mothers Group” (Stevens, 2011). It has over 4,000 members, and membership requires that the parent reside in San Francisco, have chil- dren younger than kindergarten age, and be women. Fathers are forbidden from joining the group or going to any of its daily, very well-­attended events or playgroups throughout the year. For gay fathers, many of whom are co-equal or primary caregivers for their children, there really are no groups of nearly comparable range and frequency of events in San Francisco. In sum, despite all the expressed concern among social conservatives about lesbian and gay parenting, and despite some of the challenges of dealing with stigmatization from outside the family, there are few differences between children raised by same-sex parents compared to those raised by heterosexual parents. The few differences that have been found slightly favor children of lesbian parents. The parent–child interactional processes that produce posi- tive child and adolescent functioning are exactly the same in all types of fami- lies. Gay and lesbian parents appear to be as capable as heterosexual parents in providing nurturing, responsible, stable, and organized homes. Children’s psychological outcomes are related only to processes of family interaction (emotional support and appropriate guidance), not to the gender or sexual orientation of the parents.  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 189 Relational Ambiguity and the Politics of Same‑Sex Marriage Elsewhere, I have suggested that a central task for gay and lesbian people is to resolve “relational ambiguity” in their couple and family relationships (Green & Mitchell, 2008). Most fundamentally, every couple or family relationship in the world is based on an underlying definition of what constitutes membership in the relationship and an implicit “contract” (often unconscious or implicit rather than explicit) consisting of mutual expectations and responsibilities over time. The challenge for gay and lesbian people is that their membership in and expectations for their family relationships are often less clear than is the case for the families of heterosexuals, whose relationships are defined to a greater extent by preexisting traditions, current norms, and law. For example, being lesbian or gay and coming out to one’s heterosexual family members almost always carries some risk of being “disowned” and losing ties to relatives. The universal gay or lesbian dilemma about whether to come out to parents leaves gay and lesbian people with a heightened aware- ness that continuation of family-of-­origin relations in adulthood is entirely voluntary on both sides. The possibility of being completely cut off and losing emotional membership in their families is a consequence that most gay and lesbian persons must contemplate seriously before choosing to disclose to their family members. As Weston observed: Of course, heterosexuals can also be disowned. But when straight people encounter rejection by relatives, that rejection arises on a case-by-case basis, generally in response to something done rather than something fundamen- tal to their sense of self. Self-­identified lesbians and gay men, in contrast, experience rejection as an ever-­present possibility structured by claiming a stigmatized sexual identity. (1991, p. 74) Although most parents do not actually reject their lesbian or gay children after disclosure, the experience of being marginalized or having love relationships rendered invisible or less valuable by family members is actually quite com- mon. Thus, many gay and lesbian people feel like “swans in duck families” and are uncertain about the extent to which they are and will remain full- ­fledged members of their families compared to the way most heterosexuals (including their own heterosexual siblings) ordinarily take family membership for granted. Similarly when it comes to couple relationships, the absence of normative templates and public models for being a same-sex couple, and the lack of legal statuses and protections leave many same-sex partners unsure about whether their “coupleness” is indeed valid or “real” like heterosexual couple relation- ships, which are legitimized by families, social networks, and organized reli- gion, and by the government through legal marriage. In fact, for many same- sex partners who are unable to marry, the transition from “noncouple” to “couple” status itself remains murky (Greenan & Tunnell, 2002). How do 190 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES same-sex partners and their social networks know when the partners have become a couple “from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ‘till death do us part” if there is no legally sanctioned marriage to demarcate a transition to a full couple status? When the government will not recognize the existence of the partners’ relationship or any claims to mutual responsibilities, each partner is extremely vulnerable to financial mistreatment by the other in the event of separation, or vulnerable to financial mistreatment by the other partner’s next of kin in the event of a partner’s death, unless legal wills and trust documents have been drawn up in advance to prevent that outcome. Furthermore, in the many jurisdictions where second-­parent adoption of children by same-sex partners is not permitted, the nonbiological or nonadop- tive parent and child in a family have no legal claim to a relationship with one another. They may be members of one another’s “families” psychologically but not legally. Being a “nonlegal parent” is a precarious status, especially if the parents’ relationship dissolves, or if the legal parent dies unexpectedly while the family is traveling abroad. Many protracted custody battles have followed couple breakups or the deaths of biological parents of children being raised by same-sex couples. Sometimes the biological parent attempts to cut off the child’s contact with the nonbiological parent after a couple breaks up; and sometimes a child’s biological grandparents attempt to terminate the nonbiological parent’s contact with and custody of a child after the biological parent dies. In addition, the equal validity of same-sex couple and family relation- ships has been constantly under attack during the many media campaigns, state ballot initiatives, legislative votes, and court decisions concerning same- sex marriage in the United States in recent years. Gay and lesbian people are bombarded almost daily with messages from media commentators and politi- cians debating whether same-sex relationships are worthy of equal marriage and parenting rights. The denial of marriage rights through voter initiatives has had a significant demoralizing effect on gay and lesbian citizens and their families in many states. For example, researchers found that an anti-same-sex marriage initiative in Tennessee created greater psychological distress among the family-of-­origin members of gay and lesbian residents (Arm, Horne, & Levitt, 2009). The cam- paign for the initiative provided omnipresent reminders that gay and lesbian people were seen as little more than objects in debates by their government and the public. These relatives felt that their gay and lesbian family members’ lives had been constantly misrepresented to advance hostile political agendas. The increased stress was reflected in greater fears of rejection and hypervigi- lance to protect themselves against random acts of prejudice. Some chose to isolate themselves. Others chose to become political activists in an attempt to gain some sense of control under the circumstances. In a broader survey of gay and lesbian citizens across many states, researchers found increased minority stress, depression, and anxiety following passage of constitutional  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 191 amendments to prohibit same-sex marriage in participants’ states of residence (Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, & Miller, 2009). The greatest challenge for gay and lesbian people in their couple and fam- ily relationships is to maintain a sense of dignity, legitimacy, and responsible commitment in the face of such undermining messages from both proximal and distal sources. There is every reason to believe that marriage rights would reduce relational ambiguity and convey greater legitimacy to gay and lesbian couple and family relationships in the minds of heterosexuals and gay and les- bian people alike. There already is evidence that same-sex couples who obtain civil unions are more likely to stay together over a 3-year period than compa- rable same-sex partners without civil unions (Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008). Same-sex marriage also would provide important legal protections, such as health care benefits and immigration rights for same-sex spouses and their children, as well as social security benefits and inheritance tax benefits for surviving spouses. Same-sex marriage would make it safer for the partners to invest more psychologically and financially in their future as a couple together (Green & Mitchell, 2008). However, just as the advent of legal interracial marriage has not provided full equality of opportunity for historically oppressed racial minority groups, same-sex marriage will be no cureall for the discrimination that gay and les- bian families face. As Ettelbrick (1997) commented: We must not fool ourselves into believing that marriage will make it accept- able to be gay or lesbian. We will be liberated only when we are respected and accepted for our differences and the diversity we provide to this society. (p. 124) It is to that larger mission that readers of this chapter can contribute—by conveying to members of our own communities, the media, and public policy- makers what we, as professionals, have learned about gay and lesbian family life. Notes 1. Throughout this chapter, I use the terms “gay” and “lesbian” to refer to peo- ple who self-­identify as having primary love and sexual orientations toward people of the same sex. However, many people who engage in such relationships do not identify with these labels. Some of them would more accurately be referred to simply as “men who have sex with men,” “women who have sex with women,” “same-­gender-loving men or women,” or “bisexuals,” and others prefer terms such as “queer,” “question- ing,” or “fluid.” Although it is common to refer to the LGBT community as a unitary group, I did not feel that I could do justice to bisexual and transgender family relations given the lack of family systems research on these topics and the page limitations of the current chapter. For more about bisexual and transgender people’s family relations, see the 192 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES clinical writings of Bigner and Wetchler (in press), Firestein (2007), Fox (2006), Lev (2004, 2010), and McGoldrick and Ashton (Chapter 11, this volume). 2. Current information about the country-by-­country status of LGBT human rights can be obtained from the website of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), www.iglhrc.org. References Arm, J., Horne, S. G., & Levitt, H. (2009). Negotiating connection to GLBT experi- ence: Family members’ experience of anti-GLBT movements and policies. Jour- nal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 82–96. Balsam, K., Beauchaine, T., Rothblum, E., & Solomon, S. (2008). Three-year follow- up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology, 44, 102–116. Bergman, K., Rubio, R.-J., Green, R.-J., & Padron, E. (2010). Gay men who become fathers via surrogacy: The transition to parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 111–141. Biblarz, T. J., & Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 480–497. Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3–22. Bigner, J. J., & Wetchler, J. L. (Eds.). (in press). Handbook of LGBT-affirmative cou- ple and family therapy. New York: Taylor & Francis. Bos, H., & Gartrell, N. (2010). Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Can family characteristics counteract the negative effects of stig- matization? Family Process, 49, 559–572. Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-­parent families. American Journal of Orthopsy- chiatry, 77, 38–45. Brodzinsky, D. M., Green, R.-J., & Katuzny, K. (2011). Adoption by lesbians and gay men: What we know, need to know, and ought to do. In D. M. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by lesbians and gay men: Research and practice issues (pp. 233–253). New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, K. M. (2000). Relationship characteristics, social support, masculine ide- ologies and psychological functioning of gay men in couples. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Alameda. CNN (2011). Census: More same-sex couples in more places. Retrieved Sep­ tember 8, 2011, from www.cnn.com/2011/us/08/24/same.sex.census/index. html?&hpt=hp-c2%20. Crary, D. (2010, September 15). Who’s a family?: New study tracks shifting US views. ABC News.com. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from abcnews.go.com/US/ wireStory?id=11640416. Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A meta-­analysis of developmental outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 385–407. D’Augelli, A. R., Rendina, H. J., Sinclaire, K. O., & Grossman, A. H. (2007). Lesbian  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 193 and gay youth’s aspirations for marriage and raising children. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1, 77–98. D’Augelli, R. D., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2006). Childhood gender atypi- cality, victimization and PTSD among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462–1482. Egan, P. J., Edelman, M. S., & Sherrill, K. (2008, November 10). Findings from the Hunter College poll of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: New discoveries about identity, political attitudes and civic engagement. Retrieved from www.hrc.org/ documents/hunter_college_report.pdf. Ettelbrick, P. (1997). Since when is marriage a path to liberation? In A. Sullivan (Ed.), Same-sex marriage: Pro and con (pp. 118–124). New York: Vintage Books. Firestein, B. (Ed.). (2007). Becoming visible: Counseling bisexuals across the lifespan. New York: Columbia University Press. Fox, R. (Ed.). (2006). Affirmative psychotherapy with bisexual women and bisexual men. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Gartrell, N., & Bos, H. (2010). U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics, 10, 1–9. Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gotta, G., Green, R.-J., Rothblum, E., Solomon, S., Balsam, K., & Schwartz, P. (2011). Lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual relationships: A comparison of couples in 1975 and 2000. Family Process, 50, 353–376. Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Gross, J., Frederickson, B. L., McCoy, K., Rosen- thal, L., et al. (2003). Correlates of gay and lesbian couples’ relationship satisfac- tion and relationship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 23–43. Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Swanson, C., Swanson, K., Tyson, R., & Yoshim- oto, D. (2003). Observing gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples’ relationships: Mathematical modeling of conflict interaction. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 65–91. Green, R.-J., Bettinger, M., & Zacks, E. (1996). Are lesbian couples “fused” and gay male couples “disengaged?”: Questioning gender straightjackets. In J. Laird & R.-J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists (pp. 185–230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Green, R.-J., & Mitchell, V. (2008). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Minority stress, relational ambiguity, and families of choice. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clini- cal handbook of couple therapy (4th ed., pp. 662–680). New York: Guilford Press. Greenan, D., & Tunnell, G. (2002). Couple therapy with gay men. New York: Guil- ford Press. Hall, M. (2004). Resolving the curious paradox of the (a)sexual lesbian. In J. Bigner & J. L. Wetchler (Eds.), Relationship therapy with same-sex couples (pp. 75–84). New York: Routledge. Herdt, G., & Koff, B. (2000). Something to tell you: The road families travel when a child is gay. New York: Columbia University Press. Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Relationship quality of gay and lesbian cohabitating couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 25, 93–118. Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabitating couples really that differ- ent from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900. 194 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Laird, J., & Green, R.-J. (Eds.). (1996). Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Langer, G. (2011). Support for gay marriage reaches a milestone: More than half of Americans say gay marriage should be legal. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from abcnews.go.com/politics/support-gay-­m arriage-­reaches-­m ilestone/story?id= 13159608. LaSala, M. C. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families adjust to a gay or lesbian child. New York: Colombia University Press. Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-­variant people and their families. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Lev, A. I. (2010). How queer!—The development of gender identity and sexual orien- tation in LGBTQ-headed families. Family Process, 49, 268–290. Lewin, E. (2009). Gay fatherhood: Narratives of family and citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mallon, G. P. (2004). Gay men choosing parenthood. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press. McPherson, D. (1993). Gay parenting couples: Parenting arrangements, arrangement satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA. Mitchell, V., & Green, R.-J. (2007). Different storks for different folks: Gay and les- bian parents’ experiences with alternative insemination and surrogacy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3(2/3), 81–104. Mooallem, J. (2010). Can animals be gay? New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?emc=eta1. Patterson, C. J. (2005). Lesbian and gay parenting: Summary of research findings. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from www.apa.org/pi/parent.html. Patterson, C. J. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 241–244. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424. Peplau, L. A., Fingerhut, A. W., & Beals, K. P. (2004). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The hand- book of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 349–269). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Roisman, G. I., Clausell, E., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., & Elief, C. (2008). Multim- ethod comparision of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads. Developmental Psychology, 44, 91–101. Romero, A. P., Baumle, A., Badgett, M. V. L., & Gates, G. J. (2007). Williams Insti- tute Census snapshot: December 2007. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/uscensussnapshot.pdf. Roselli, C., & Balthazart, J. (Eds.). (2011). Sexual differentiation of sexual behavior and its orientation. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 109–264. Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Horne, S. G., & Miller, A. D. (2009). Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 56–66. Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Comparison of same-sex couples who were married in Massachusetts, had domestic partnerships in Cali- fornia, or had civil unions in Vermont. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 48–78. Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a  Gay and Lesbian Family Life 195 predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123, 346–352. Savin-­Williams, R. C. (2001). “Mom, dad. I’m gay:” How families negotiate coming out. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schacher, S. J., Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2005). Gay fathers expanding the possibilities for us all. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1, 31–52. Shernoff, M. (2006). Negotiated nonmonogamy and male couples. Family Process, 45, 407–418. Simmons, T., & O’Connell, M. (2003). Married-­couple and unmarried-­partner households: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Smith, T. W. (2011). Cross-national differences in attitudes toward homosexuality. GSS cross-national report number 31. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. Retrieved July 31, 2011, from www3.law.ucla. edu/Williamsinstitute/pdf/Smith-CrossNational-NORC-May2011.pdf. Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compated with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 275–286. Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and het- erosexual married siblings. Sex Roles, 52, 561–575. Stevens, E. L. (2011). In a clubby world of San Francisco mothers, men needn’t apply. New York Times. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/ us/03bcstevens.html?src=twrhp. Stone Fish, L., & Harvey, R. G. (2005). Nurturing queer youth: Family therapy trans- formed. New York: Norton. Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child development. New York: Guilford Press. Tasker, F., & Patterson, C. J. (2007). Research on gay and lesbian parenting: Retro- spect and prospect. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3(2/3), 9–34. Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2006). Delinquency, victimization, and subtance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychol- ogy, 20, 526–530. Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Developmental Psychology, 44, 117–126. Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex par- ents. Child Development, 75, 1886–1898. Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.