Marriage (In)equality: The Perspectives of Adolescents and Emerging Adults With Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Parents
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ABBIE E. GOLDBERG Clark University
KATHERINE A. KUVALANKA Miami University*
Marriage (In)equality: The Perspectives
of Adolescents and Emerging Adults With Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Parents
The debate over whether same-sex couples Whether same-sex couples should be allowed
should be allowed to enter into civil marriages to marry is a topic of considerable debate
continues in the United States. Forty-nine within the United States (Woodford, 2010).
adolescents and emerging adults (ages 14 – 29) After the 1996 passage of the federal Defense
with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents were of Marriage Act (Pub. L. No. 104-199), which
interviewed for the current exploratory study, defined marriage as exclusively heterosexual for
which examined how individuals perceived federal purposes, several states passed laws or
themselves and their families as being affected by constitutional amendments defining marriage as
marriage (in)equality, as well as the factors that between one man and one woman (Oswald &
shaped their perspectives. More than two thirds Kuvalanka, 2008). Only six states (Connecticut,
of participants voiced unequivocal support Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
for marriage equality, citing numerous legal York, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia
and symbolic benefits that their families were currently allow same-sex couples to enter into
denied. One quarter of participants articulated civil marriages, and California remains in limbo
critical perspectives of marriage or the fight for while a federal district court judge’s decision
marriage equality, while also acknowledging the to overturn the state’s recent constitutional
benefits associated with marriage. As the first amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual
study to examine the perspectives of individuals couples is appealed (Associated Press, 2010).
with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents with Individuals who oppose extending marriage
regard to marriage (in)equality, this research to same-sex couples have expressed concern
has important implications for the marriage that legalizing civil marriages between same-
equality debate and provides a springboard for sex partners will hasten the decline of marriage
future studies on this topic. as an institution. Wardle (2006) argued that rec-
ognizing marriages of same-sex couples would
change the meaning of marriage, such that
Department of Psychology, Clark University, 950 Main St., ‘‘conjugal marriage’’ (marriage between a man
Worcester, MA 01610 (agoldberg@clarku.edu). and a woman) would be replaced with ‘‘com-
*Department of Family Studies and Social Work, Miami mitted intimate relationships.’’ In his opinion,
University, Oxford, OH 45056. the heterosexual dimensions of the relationship
This article was edited by Ralph LaRossa. are central to the definition of marriage and
Key Words: adolescents, emerging adults, gay, lesbian, why it is of such fundamental value to soci-
marriage, qualitative. ety. Some opponents have further claimed that
34 Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (February 2012): 34 – 52
DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00876.xMarriage (In)equality 35 allowing same-sex couples to marry is harm- that a growing number of young people believe ful to children, arguing that children fare best that marriage as an institution is becoming obso- with both their biological, heterosexual moth- lete (Pew Research Center, 2010), some scholars ers and fathers (Carroll & Dollahite, 2008). In have suggested that youth with LGB parents may Iowa, the case made by the state against legal tend to hold a somewhat different view of mar- recognition of marriages by same-sex partners riage, given their awareness of and experience involved the argument that allowing same-sex with existing marriage laws that have explicitly couples to marry would disadvantage any future discriminated against same-sex couples (Gabb, children these couples might have. The state’s 2004). Yet no research has explored how chil- attorney argued that heterosexual couples pro- dren with LGB parents perceive marriage and vide the best home for children and that thus the marriage (in)equality. The current qualitative state should limit legal recognition of marriage study of 49 adolescents and emerging adults to different-sex couples (see Patterson, 2009). (ages 14 – 29) with LGB parents aims to fill Advocates of extending marriage to same-sex this gap. couples have situated the pursuit of marriage equality within a civil rights framework, argu- ing that access to marriage is important in LGB Adults’ Perspectives on Marriage and that it grants same-sex couples access to many Marriage (In)equality important legal rights. These advocates have Although no research has described how young highlighted the reality that, within the United adults with LGB parents think about marriage States, marriage privileges individuals in numer- and marriage equality, a growing body of empir- ous ways, including allowing married people to ical and theoretical scholarship has explored be covered under their spouses’ health insurance the perspectives of LGB people. This work has and to inherit their spouses’ personal assets with- revealed a diverse range of views among both out being taxed excessively (Patterson, 2009; LGB laypeople and scholars regarding the mean- Pawelski et al., 2006). Advocates have also ing and implications of marriage for same-sex emphasized the symbolic benefits of marriage, couples. Some are critical of marriage and have arguing that marriage equality may help to legit- asserted that, rather than seeking access to the imate same-sex relationships and to combat the rights that married couples enjoy, LGB people discrimination that lesbian, gay, and bisexual and allies should be critical about whether it is (LGB) people and their families face (Meezan fair that marriage bestows such privileges in the & Rauch, 2005). first place (Card, 2007; Lannutti, 2008). Critics Both the practical and symbolic benefits of have questioned, for example, whether provid- marriage have been emphasized when discussing ing income tax benefits to married couples is the welfare of children, in particular. Advocates appropriate, because this practice disadvantages of marriage equality have asserted that mar- single people and those who do not wish to marry riage may benefit children by increasing their (LaSala, 2007). Other scholars and laypeople material security and well-being by means of have conceded that critiques of the institution of benefits such as spousal health insurance eli- marriage are viable but assert that one can hold gibility (i.e., children with legal ties to both critical views of the institution and still seek parents can receive health insurance from either marriage equality in order to benefit one’s own parent; Pawelski et al., 2006). Marriage may and one’s children’s well-being (Lannutti, 2008; also benefit children by increasing the stability Peel & Harding, 2004). of their parents’ unions; that is, couples may be Empirical research has increasingly exam- less likely to break up in the presence of legal ined the variability of beliefs regarding marriage and symbolic safeguards. Finally, advocates of equality among LGB adults. Lannutti (2007) marriage equality have contended that marriage surveyed LGB Massachusetts residents about may indirectly benefit children by enhancing their views on marriage equality after the 2003 the social acceptance of their parents’ unions, Massachusetts court ruling in favor of same- thereby reducing the stigma to which children sex marriage. Perceived benefits of marriage are exposed (Patterson, 2009). equality included having their relationships be The voices of children with LGB parents have seen as ‘‘real’’ by others and having their been absent from debates about marriage equal- relationships become validated for themselves. ity. Although national poll data have indicated Perceived drawbacks included the possibility
36 Journal of Marriage and Family
that by marrying they might somehow become, family structure, less frequent encounters with
or be seen as becoming, like heterosexual homophobia, and fewer adjustment problems
people. In their study of same-sex couples than American children.
in Massachusetts, Schecter, Tracy, Page, and Thus, research with LGB family members
Luong (2008) found that although married cou- has begun to document a relationship among
ples often emphasized that civil marriage (i.e., a the sociolegal context, exposure to stigma, and
state-sanctioned institution with legal rights and well-being. LGB parents and prospective par-
responsibilities) was not as important as the emo- ents may in turn be aware of how marriage
tional commitment that couples made to each may benefit their children by minimizing or
other, they also acknowledged that marrying buffering the effects of societal stigma. Porche
had deepened their commitment to their partners. and Purvin (2008) studied a small sample of
Furthermore, at the same time that married cou- same-sex couples in Massachusetts and found
ples often voiced a sense of justice in having their that parents and prospective parents often felt
relationships sanctioned, some were uncomfort- that marriage provided children with an almost
able with the idea that being seen as ‘‘normal’’ intangible yet critical sense of security. Like-
also meant being seen as merging into a patriar- wise, Lannutti (2008) interviewed members of
chal institution. It is notable that, although recent same-sex couples in Massachusetts who were
studies of same-sex couples have often focused married or engaged and found that some par-
on those with access to marriage, many couples ticipants’ motivation to marry rested in part on
have formed long-lasting unions in the absence their belief that getting married would help to
of marriage; thus, geographic, generational, and protect their relationships with existing or future
historical contexts should be considered when children.
studying LGB people’s perspectives on marriage Indeed, in the absence of marriage (and thus
(Reczek, Elliott, & Umberson, 2009). the parentage presumption, a doctrine that pre-
sumes that a child born to a married woman
is the child of both the biological mother and
What About the Children? her spouse), children of LGB parents are often
The emerging literature suggests that youth legally vulnerable (Rosato, 2006). Their par-
with LGB parents show similar outcomes com- ents may try to access the legal protections
pared with youth with heterosexual parents, with that are available (e.g., second-parent adoptions,
respect to psychological and social adjustment, which allow the partner of a legal biological
thereby challenging the notion that children are or adoptive parent to also adopt the child),
disadvantaged by growing up with LGB parents thereby weaving together a ‘‘patchwork quilt’’
(see Biblarz & Savci, 2010, for a review). At the of legal security for their children. Yet this
same time, the literature indicates that youth with quilt is not without holes, and in some cases
LGB parents may encounter unique challenges these holes are quite large. Few states guaran-
related to the stigmatized nature of their family tee same-sex couples access to second-parent
structure. For example, they are vulnerable to adoptions, thus preventing both parents from
teasing about their parents’ sexual orientation being able to make emergency medical decisions
(Fairtlough, 2008; Tasker & Golombok, 1997), for their children, from sharing the responsi-
and experiences with stigma have been linked to bility of financially supporting their children,
poorer mental health (Bos & van Balen, 2008). and so on (Pawelski et al., 2006). Furthermore,
It is notable that there is mounting research LGB coparents without second-parent adoptions
showing that the sociolegal context in which could end up legal strangers to their children,
LGB-parent families live has implications for the should the partners separate: When same-sex
degree of stigma they encounter related to their couples have dissolved their unions, courts have
family structure and, in turn, their mental health clearly favored a biological/legal parent over a
(Goldberg & Smith, 2011). For example, Bos, nonlegal coparent in custody and visitation dis-
Gartrell, van Balen, Peyser, and Sandfort (2008) putes (Richman, 2009). Thus, the unevenness of
compared children (ages 8 – 12 years) with les- laws and judicial decisions from state to state can
bian parents in The Netherlands (where marriage create vulnerabilities for LGB parents and their
has been an option for same-sex couples since children.
2001) and the United States and found that Dutch As discussed earlier in this article, there
children reported greater openness about their is a literature on LGB adults’ perceptions ofMarriage (In)equality 37
marriage equality. Although LGB adults’ views LGB parents, we aimed to answer the following
are important, it is essential to gain insight into two questions:
the perspectives of individuals with LGB par-
ents for several reasons. First, their voices should 1. How do adolescents and emerging adults with
not a priori be assumed to be tautological; ado- LGB parents view marriage and marriage
lescents and emerging adults with LGB parents (in)equality? How do their perspectives vary,
may have a unique vantage point for considering and what factors seem to influence these
the meaning and consequences of same-sex mar- various perspectives?
riage. Their perspectives may be shaped by their 2. How do adolescents and emerging adults
particularly vulnerable status as the children of with LGB parents believe that the lives of
LGB parents, whereby their parents’ ability to families like their own might be affected by
access marriage and other legal protections has marriage equality? In other words, what kinds
implications for their daily exposure to minority of practical and/or symbolic consequences do
stress and, thus, their well-being. Indeed, amidst they associate with marriage equality?
a cultural context that defines family relationship
in terms of biological and legal ties, children with THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
LGB parents often must construct their families
in the absence of such ties. Defining and assert- We approached these questions guided by an
ing their family relationships in the absence of integrative theoretical framework, which com-
societal or legal recognition (e.g., marriage) may bines minority stress, legal consciousness, and
require a certain amount of work that, over time, social constructionist frameworks. A minority
can be stressful (Breshears, 2010). stress framework suggests that LGB people
Second, the views of individuals with LGB comprise a disadvantaged social group that is
parents may be uniquely shaped by their age and subject to stigma, which predisposes them to
generational factors. The participants in our sam- excess stress that may lead to adverse mental
ple were born in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, health effects (Meyer, 2003). Minority stress
before the issue of marriage equality had gained theory points to the pathogenic social condi-
national attention, and many had LGB parents tions that stigmatize LGB people and treat them
who were together long before marriage was as inferior to heterosexuals as the source of
considered a possibility for same-sex couples. the psychosocial stress that LGB people expe-
The fact that the marriage equality debate grew rience (Meyer, 2003). Although the experience
in intensity during their formative years—in of minority stress has long been recognized in
particular, their adolescence, a time marked the LGB population, minority stress has less fre-
by identity formation and exploration with quently been examined in the context of youth
respect to relationships and worldviews (Arnett, with LGB parents (Bos & van Balen, 2008;
2000)—potentially makes them a unique cohort. Goldberg, 2007). This perspective is important
Furthermore, there was great diversity within in that this group is vulnerable to unique stressors
this cohort, enabling us to examine how their par- related to having an LGB parent and may thus
ticular circumstances (e.g., whether they grew view marriage equality as a vehicle for minimiz-
up with LGB parents or experienced their LGB ing the stressors that their families face in the
parent[s] coming out later) might influence their broader heterosexist society. Indeed, marriage
views of marriage equality. Finally, on a theoret- amendments and other anti-LGB policies are
ical level, gaining their perspectives on marriage often perceived as ‘‘acute prejudicial events by
(in)equality can broaden our knowledge of how LGB citizens and thus by definition are minor-
marriage (in)equality affects families and may ity stress factors’’ (Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, &
lend insight into the changing role of marriage Miller, 2009, p. 57). In turn, marriage equality
in society. may be valued at both the broader, symbolic
Thus, we were interested in gaining an under- level (i.e., in terms of what it means for society)
standing of how individuals with LGB parents as well as on the personal, practical level (i.e., in
perceive themselves, and the broader commu- terms of what it means for individual families).
nity of children with LGB parents, as being We also draw from the notion of legal
affected by marriage (in)equality. Through our consciousness (Ewick & Silbey, 1998), which
analysis of interviews with 49 adolescents and encompasses the bidirectional and histori-
emerging adults (ages 14 – 29) with one or more cally changing tensions between individual38 Journal of Marriage and Family engagement with the legal system and the struc- about marriage and the need for marriage, tural and practical constraints that govern such given that their families are often living their engagement. Ewick and Silbey (1998) differ- lives without access to it. Furthermore, because entiated among three types of legal conscious- individuals with LGB parents must often con- ness—(a) before the law, (b) with the law, and struct their family identity (including ideas about (c) against the law—that attend to ‘‘both the commitment and family connectedness) in the constraints and opportunities of law and the absence of marriage (Breshears, 2010), of inter- ways in which people negotiate their lives within est is the degree to which they view marriage these parameters’’ (Oswald & Kuvalanka, 2008, as capable of transforming LGB family mem- p. 1053). When individuals perceive themselves bers’ constructions of family relations, as well as positioned before the law, they view the legal as shaping outsiders’ views of LGB families. system as a powerful external authority to which they submit. A child with LGB parents who accepts her or his family’s lack of legal rights METHOD as unchangeable and not worth challenging is Sample standing before the law (Oswald & Kuvalanka, 2008). When individuals position themselves A total of 49 individuals, ages 14 to 29 (M = with the law, they strategically engage with the 22.15 years, SD = 3.58), participated in the law for their own benefit. A child living in a study. Thirty-eight participants self-identified as state where civil marriage for same-sex couples female, 10 as male, and one as gender-queer. is legally accessible, and who wants her or his In response to an open-ended question about LGB parents to enter into a civil marriage to sexual orientation, 39 individuals self-identified access rights and privileges, is positioned with as heterosexual, five as queer, two as gay, two as the law. Likewise, children with LGB parents bisexual, and one as lesbian. Most participants who are satisfied with civil unions might also be (n = 43) were White, four were Hispanic, one positioned with the law. When individuals strug- was African American, and one was Asian. gle against the law, they intentionally resist legal Seven participants had less than a high school authority. A child with LGB parents who voices education (they were currently in high school); opposition to the federal Defense of Marriage one had a high school diploma, 17 had some Act is positioned against the law. Finally, legal college (in most cases because they were in consciousness can vary across time and cir- college), one had an associate’s degree, 21 had cumstance, reflecting changes in and differences a bachelor’s degree, one had a master’s degree, between individuals’ learning, experiences, and and one had a J.D. resources. Thus, children with LGB parents may Participants grew up in a variety of family have varying positions with regard to marriage situations. In 20 cases, participants had been (in)equality as a function of the dynamic nature born to two mothers via donor insemination of state and federal laws defining marriage and and had a biological mother and a nonbiological their own personal circumstances. mother. In 22 cases, participants had been born to Finally, a social constructionist framework heterosexual parents, one or both of whom later emphasizes the construction of meaning and came out as LGB (in 13 cases, their mother; knowledge, placing emphasis on individuals’ in eight cases, their father; in one case, both constructions of their experiences. Individu- parents). Two participants were born to a single als’ meaning-making processes are necessarily lesbian mother, one was born to a lesbian couple shaped by their everyday interactions and imme- and a gay male couple who coparented, one was diate social context, as well as broader historical, born to a bisexual mother and a gay father, one cultural, and ideological contexts (Schwandt, was adopted by two gay fathers at birth, one was 2000). Because the dominant cultural narrative adopted by two lesbian mothers at birth, and is that marriage is a fundamental institution one was born to heterosexual parents but later in society, affording unparalleled symbolic and adopted by a lesbian couple via the child welfare practical benefits to relationships (Dodge, 2006), system. individuals with LGB parents may internalize Eighteen participants grew up in California; this narrative, inasmuch as the absence of civil five in Ohio; four in Pennsylvania; four in Mas- marriage may have profound effects on their sachusetts; three in Minnesota; two in Georgia; lives. Or, they may construct resistant narratives two in Texas; two in Virginia; and one each
Marriage (In)equality 39
in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine, for students, parents, and schools; and COLAGE
Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Oregon. In (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere), an
terms of their current state of residence, 16 par- organization run by and for individuals with one
ticipants were living in California; five in Ohio; or more lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or
four in Massachusetts; three in New York; three queer (LGBTQ) parents. LGBTQ centers on sev-
in Washington State; two in Florida; two in eral university campuses throughout the United
Georgia; two in Illinois; two in Texas; two in States also disseminated information about the
Virginia; and one each in Arizona, Colorado, study to their students. Finally, several chapters
Maine, Minnesota, Ontario Canada, Oregon, of PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. Gays) provided information to their members.
Ten participants reported that their LGB par-
ent(s) had obtained civil marriages; in seven of Procedure
these cases, the marriages involved an LGB par-
ent and stepparent. Also in seven of these cases, Abbie E. Goldberg’s contact information was
participants’ parents were married in California included with the study description, and potential
before the passage of Proposition 8, a voter mea- participants contacted her for study details. Inter-
sure that banned additional same-sex couples ested participants were mailed a consent form
from entering into legally recognized civil mar- ensuring confidentiality and detailing the condi-
riages in that state (and the constitutionality of tions of participation, as well as a small packet
which is currently under legal debate; Associated of questionnaires to complete. Participants then
Press, 2010). In all but 2 of these 10 cases, the completed an in-depth, semistructured telephone
marriages were granted in their own states and interview (about 1 hour) with Abbie E. Goldberg
recognized. Three participants reported that their or a trained graduate research assistant. Inter-
LGB parent(s) had obtained a domestic partner- views were transcribed verbatim. Pseudonyms
ship. In 13 cases, participants said that their LGB were assigned to participants.
parent(s) had had a commitment ceremony. Our analysis primarily focused on the
following interview questions:
Participant Recruitment • What are your feelings and opinions concern-
ing marriage equality for same-sex couples?
Participants were recruited and interviewed over What has informed your opinions?
the course of 8 months, namely, between March • (How) do you think marriage equality would
2010 through October 2010. Recruitment began affect LGB-parent families?
shortly before Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling • If your parents were married, how did this
that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Thus, change your/their life, if at all? If your parents
participants were recruited during a time when were married but that right has since been
the issue of marriage equality was being hotly taken away, what was this like?
debated across the country and, in some cases, • If your parents were not married, would you
within their own state. In turn, they sometimes like your parents to be able to get married?
cited Proposition 8 (and other constitutional Why/why not?
amendments banning same-sex marriage) in • If your parents obtained a civil union or
their interviews, typically as a means of ground- domestic partnership, what are your feelings
ing their own personal response to marriage about this? Does it feel like ‘‘enough’’?
inequality in a particular example. Why/why not?
Participants were recruited in a variety of • If your parents separated and their relationship
ways. Adolescents (ages 14 – 17 years, n = 7) was not legally recognized, how did things
and emerging adults (ages 18 – 29 years, n = 42) work after your parents separated in regard to
with LGB parents were invited via listserv custody, visitation, etc.?
announcements to participate in a study focused
on understanding their perspectives on and expe- We conducted a thematic analysis of the data
riences with marriage (in)equality. For example, (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) that involved a thor-
calls for participants were placed on listservs ough exploration of recurrent patterns in the data
maintained by the Safe Schools Coalition, a to create a coding system to organize the data.
partnership of organizations that seek to pro- Both the literature on LGB people’s perspec-
mote tolerance in schools by providing resources tives on marriage equality and our integrative40 Journal of Marriage and Family
theoretical framework informed our analysis. also attended to relationships among categories
One focus of our analysis was the degree to (Charmaz, 2006); for example, we attended to
which exposure to minority stress seemed to how participants’ gender, sexual orientation, and
heighten participants’ awareness of or desire for family structure (living in an LGB-parent family
marriage equality. For example, we were inter- from birth vs. having a parent come out post-
ested in whether individuals who grew up with divorce) might be relevant to their views about
LGB parents (and thus had less discretion over marriage and marriage equality.
disclosing their family structure than individ- We discussed the emerging codes and our dif-
uals whose parents came out when they were ferences in interpretation throughout the coding
older) had more passionate stances regarding process. The final coding scheme was estab-
marriage equality. We also were interested in lished once we had reached agreement among
how participants positioned themselves in rela- all the independently coded data. We contin-
tion to marriage; that is, using the concepts of ued to reapply the coding scheme to the data
legal consciousness, to what extent, and how, and made subsequent revisions until all data
were participants standing before, acting with, were accounted for with the codes. The coding
or struggling against the law? Because our anal- scheme was revised seven times. The findings
ysis was also grounded in a social constructionist are organized around the final coding scheme.
perspective, we also were generally attentive to
the ways in which individuals were construct-
RESULTS
ing and explaining their views of marriage and
marriage equality and the degree to which these In the sections that follow, we first describe par-
ideas reflected dominant narratives about mar- ticipants’ varying orientations toward and beliefs
riage. We also attended to whether and how about marriage equality. We then describe the
marriage equality was imbued with the power to perceived benefits that they associated with mar-
shape individual and dominant constructions of riage equality, discussing how they made sense
family; that is, was marriage perceived as having of the presence or absence of these benefits
the capacity to transform LGB families’ relation- in their everyday lives. Finally, we highlight
ships, or to shape others’ views of LGB families? several perceived disadvantages of marriage
We both coded the data, engaging in a process equality.
of analytic triangulation. This involves having
multiple individuals independently analyze the
same data and compare findings, thereby ensur- Beliefs About Marriage Equality
ing that multiple interpretations are considered Some participants described themselves as
and thus lending itself to verification of the strong advocates of marriage equality, oth-
soundness of the emerging descriptive scheme ers articulated critical perspectives of marriage
(Patton, 2002). First, we engaged in line-by-line and/or the fight for marriage equality, and still
analysis to generate initial theoretical categories others described mitigated support for marriage
(Charmaz, 2006). For example, we generated equality.
the initial codes ‘‘advocate of marriage equal-
ity’’ and ‘‘not an advocate of marriage equality’’ ‘‘I am all for marriage equality’’: Unequivo-
to describe individuals’ general stance on mar- cal support for marriage equality. Almost 70%
riage equality. As we moved to focused coding, of participants (n = 34; 28 women, 6 men)
we refined these codes. For example, the code described themselves as strong advocates of
‘‘not an advocate of marriage equality’’ was marriage equality. Most of them framed this
replaced with three separate codes: (a) ‘‘critical belief, at least in part, in terms of civil rights
of marriage as an institution,’’ (b) ‘‘critical of the discourses (Meezan & Rauch, 2005). Partici-
fight for marriage equality,’’ and (c) ‘‘mitigated pants focused on the injustice of LGB people
support due to ambivalence about LGB parent’s being denied the hundreds of legal rights that are
sexuality.’’ We further specified our codes by conferred by marriage. They emphasized that,
developing subcodes that denoted information as tax-paying citizens, LGB people should have
about participants’ interpretations of how or why the right to enter into civil marriage. Some par-
they feel a particular way (e.g., some participants ticipants specifically invoked the Constitution
attributed their critical stance toward marriage and argued that their parents’ right to marry was
to their geographic context and privilege). We being violated. Most of these participants alsoMarriage (In)equality 41
asserted their belief that domestic partnerships Having grown up with LGB parents their entire
and civil unions were not sufficient replacements lives, participants like Callie may have been
for marriage. They knew that ‘‘marriage carries exposed to more minority stress, on average,
an unmatched historical and legal recognition’’ than participants whose parents came out later
(Dodge, 2006, p. 91) and thus were struggling (Meyer, 2003), raising their awareness of the
against the law, as they believed that LGB peo- law’s power to enhance or undermine family
ple deserved the right to marriage specifically stability. Thus, their familial circumstances
(Ewick & Silbey, 1998). contributed to how they came to their position
Participants who did not grow up with LGB of legal consciousness (Ewick & Silbey, 1998).
parents from birth or early childhood, and who Of note is that 11 of the participants—all
therefore had been less personally affected by women—who described themselves as strong
marriage inequality, tended to ground their asser- advocates of marriage equality qualified this
tions about the importance of marriage equality by emphasizing that they believed that couples,
exclusively in the ‘‘rights’’ discourse. Their such as their LGB parents, did not need mar-
narratives thus focused more on the assorted riage to show their commitment or to be in loving
benefits associated with marriage rather than relationships. They described their parents’ com-
mitment ceremonies as meaningful, independent
on their personal experiences of living without of their access to marriage, thus resisting the
those benefits. For example, Lauren, a 24-year- notion that marriage had the power to symbol-
old White heterosexual woman whose father ically define their parents’ relationship. Thus,
came out as gay when she was 12, made the at the same time that they implicitly acknowl-
following assertion: edged the authority of the law by recognizing its
capacity to enhance or undermine family stabil-
All those things: taxation, inheritance rights . . . or ity, they also stood against the law by refusing
protection in case the relationship ends. I mean, all to accept the law’s power to define their parents’
that kind of stuff gets denied to same-sex couples. relationships (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). Tasha, a
So I think that’s one of the things that really 22-year-old White heterosexual college student
bothers me, that there’s a lot of talk around, ‘‘Well, who grew up with two adoptive lesbian mothers,
aren’t civil unions the same? Aren’t domestic described how her mothers had gotten married in
partnerships the same?’’ And they’re not the same. California prior to the passage of Proposition 8:
There are over a thousand rights that are denied
same-sex couples because marriage is not equal. It’s still under such a debate that it’s kind of—I
don’t think they want to be too attached to it. It
Participants who had been raised by LGB might get taken away. But, the whole marriage
parents from birth or early childhood, and situation has kind of been, it’s like, ‘‘You know
who had therefore been personally affected what? You love who you love. . . .The rest is just
by marriage inequality throughout their lives, documentation.’’
also tended to emphasize people’s basic right to
Of note is that 10 of these 11 participants
marriage—but also spoke to how their personal had grown up with LGB parents from birth;
experiences influenced their beliefs. In this thus, they had grown up surrounded by relation-
way, they tended to describe more emotionally ships that thrived in the absence of marriage.
charged views, punctuated with references to As Allison, a 20-year-old White heterosexual
how they had been personally affected by college student who was raised by two moth-
marriage inequality. Their stories highlighted ers, remarked,
the myriad ways in which legal inequalities
powerfully shaped their daily lives. Callie, a 25- I don’t think marriage is necessarily the best way
year-old White heterosexual woman with two to show that there’s love for one another, probably
mothers, observed that her belief in marriage just because nobody in my family has really ever
had a marriage ceremony or anything, and yet I
equality had been informed by her awareness that
feel like everyone’s very connected and loves each
other.
we don’t have the same rights as other people.
[Paying] thousands of dollars just so I could go in
and sign this paper [so that] in the event that my
Indeed, having grown up with parents who
mom gets hurt, I could visit her in the hospital. . . . maintained long-term, committed relationships
It’s those really basic things that people get from in the absence of civil marriage may have
their legally married parents . . . that we weren’t encouraged participants’ resistance to the domi-
able to get. nant social narrative about the importance of the42 Journal of Marriage and Family
marital union when constructing their own ideas equality. In some cases, they asserted that fight-
about enduring familial relationships (Reczek ing for marriage equality was elitist, noting that
et al., 2009). ‘‘poor LGB people are not the ones fighting for
marriage equality.’’ They were critical that mar-
‘‘I believe in marriage equality, with reserva- riage equality was the ‘‘lead issue’’ taken on by
tions . . .’’: Critics of the institution and/or fight LGB organizations when, from their perspective,
for marriage. Twenty-four percent of partici- many LGB people did not have anything to gain
pants (n = 12; eight women, three men, one from marriage equality. Several participants also
gender-queer person) articulated critical per- emphasized that there were many other impor-
spectives of marriage, such that they believed tant, sometimes non-LGBTQ-specific, issues to
in marriage equality but vocalized resistance to worry about, including health care, immigra-
the institution of marriage and/or the fight for tion, and homelessness, all of which seemed
marriage equality. They described marriage as an more worthy of political activism than mar-
‘‘oppressive’’ institution, particularly to women, riage equality. Jessie, a 22-year-old White
and did not know whether they themselves would female heterosexual college student, asserted the
ultimately choose to marry. They were critical following:
of ‘‘state interference in relationships’’ and felt
that tying benefits to marriage ‘‘reinforces the Gay marriage is the issue that people without any
idea that being coupled is a superior thing.’’ problems go to as their problem. I realize I am com-
At the same time, they believed that everyone ing at this from a place of a lot of privilege, because
should have the choice to marry. In this way, they I have a lot of privilege. . . . But the people who
are fighting this . . . are upper middle-class, White,
gave voice to the problems with marriage while
[and] gay. . . . People who are struggling to feed
also claiming LGB people’s right to access it their kids and are gay are not on the front lines of
(Peel & Harding, 2004). As Leah, a 25-year-old this. It’s like, do they really need that kind of sup-
White heterosexual woman who was raised by a port from the government that marriage gives you?
bisexual mother and a gay father, explained,
Jessie later acknowledged, however, that
I think everyone should be able to get married ‘‘there are definitely financial benefits to being
if they want to, but I also think the institution married.’’ Thus, she indirectly suggested that
of marriage has been generally kind of oppres- although poor LGB people may not be on the
sive for a lot of people. I don’t really personally
‘‘front lines,’’ they may actually benefit from
believe in the institution, but I think that people
who want to get married definitely should be able marriage, if they choose to marry (i.e., to act
to do that. . . . In my ideal world, everyone would with the law).
just get domestic partnerships, and then marriage These participants’ more critical views may
wouldn’t be that big an issue [laughs]. But I think in part be accounted for by their social locations.
that because marriage is so important to so many Several of them observed how their parents’
people, everyone should be able to have it. access to high levels of educational and financial
resources enabled them to protect their families
Leah’s preference for domestic partnerships against hardship (e.g., through second-parent
was echoed by several others (n = 4), who adoptions). They recognized that their social
believed that the legal and romantic aspects of and economic privilege offset the hardships
marriage would ideally be disentangled, such that might be incurred by less affluent families
that civil marriage was separate from reli- who lacked marriage rights and noted that they
gious/commitment ceremonies. They therefore might not be so critical of marriage if they
positioned themselves against the law by resist- were personally affected by marriage inequality:
ing the institution of marriage in its current form ‘‘The privilege of my family made it such that
(Ewick & Silbey, 1998), but they also stood with it wasn’t something we needed.’’ Indeed, in
the law by noting that, in the absence of over- 4 of the 12 cases, participants’ LGB parents
hauling the institution of marriage, LGB people had recently entered into civil marriages—yet
should be able to access it in order to obtain they noted that their parents’ marriage did not
certain benefits. have much of an impact on them, specifically
Seven of the above 12 participants also because their families had already procured
voiced their criticism of the level of energy second-parent adoptions. Likewise, several
and resources devoted to the fight for marriage participants invoked their own geographicMarriage (In)equality 43
privilege, noting that they might be less critical Perceived Benefits or Advantages of Marriage
of marriage if they had grown up in less Equality
progressive, more stigmatizing communities.
Many participants in the study identified legal
Thus, protective factors in the form of social, benefits of marriage, noting its power to enhance
material, and community resources may have security in LGB-parent families. They also
protected them from minority stress (Meyer, described symbolic advantages of marriage,
2003), facilitating their willingness to vocally such as sending the message that LGB-
criticize the fight for marriage equality. parent families were legitimate. Finally, some
Also of note is that all but one of the partic- participants believed that marriage might exert
ipants who espoused more critical perspectives a stabilizing influence on LGB-parent families.
had grown up with lesbian parents since birth or
early childhood. Perhaps not experiencing any Legal benefits. Legal benefits of marriage were
legal vulnerability—as well as living their entire identified by participants who were uncondi-
lives in ‘‘nontraditional’’ households—gave tionally supportive of marriage equality efforts
them the freedom to be more critical of marriage as well as those with more critical stances. Thus,
and the fight for marriage equality. Furthermore, even individuals who expressed apprehension
four of these participants self-identified as queer, about the institution of marriage recognized that,
which may have facilitated their sense of free- because marriage was associated with a host of
dom to advance more critical (e.g., radical fem- legal privileges, access to those privileges via
inist) perspectives on marriage (LaSala, 2007). marriage had the capacity to enhance families’
material well-being (Meezan & Rauch, 2005).
‘‘I believe in marriage equality, but . . .’’: Mit- Fourteen participants (12 women and 2 men)
igated support. Six percent of participants (two described financial continuity (i.e., wills, inheri-
women, one man), whose parents came out when tance) as a concern, given that their parents were
they were teenagers, expressed that they were not legally married. They worried that their par-
struggling with complex feelings surrounding ents would be unable to pass on property or
their parents’ divorce and their LGB parents’ assets to each other or that their nonlegal parents
subsequent relationships. Although they claimed would be unable to pass on property or assets to
to believe in the right to marry for all, their them. Tammy, a 26-year-old White heterosexual
ambivalence surrounding the nature of their woman who had grown up with a mother and
LGB parent’s current relationship(s) prevented father until her mother came out when she was
them from assuming a more passionate stance. a teen, shared the following:
Ian, a 24-year-old White heterosexual man
whose father came out when he was 14, claimed It’s a pretty big fear of [my mother’s] that if
to support marriage equality yet acknowledged something happened to her, all the power of
struggling with his father’s same-sex relation- attorney and all that would probably go to her
ships, feeling that his father ‘‘always put his mother, whereas she barely knows her mother and
relationships ahead of me and my sisters.’’ has established this 15-year relationship with her
Miranda, a 20-year-old heterosexual college stu- wife, but it [isn’t] recognized . . . so my stepmom
dent whose mother came out when she was would literally be left with nothing, even though
their lives are so intertwined. So my mom is
17 after having an affair with a woman, also always preaching to me, ‘‘Please don’t let this
expressed conflicted feelings, noting that she happen, please don’t let this happen. This is what
was ‘‘pretty liberal in [her] views’’ but dis- I want, these are my wishes,’’ so that I can kind of
agreed strongly with the affair. These findings override that in case anything ever happens. I kind
complement prior work that suggests that youth of have to be the voice for her wife.
whose LGB parents come out after a divorce may
experience an array of stressors that involve both Twelve participants (all women) specifically
the divorce and their parents’ sexuality (Fairt- identified the right to visit a loved one (i.e., in
lough, 2008), yet they go beyond prior work to the hospital) as a fundamental right conferred by
suggest how experiencing these events, side by marriage. They noted that they knew ‘‘multiple
side, may create internal conflict for youth with families and people who couldn’t go and see
LGB parents as they struggle to articulate their another loved one while they were in the hospital
views on political—and now personal—topics because they weren’t considered family,’’ a
such as same-sex marriage. problem that they recognized would ‘‘go away’’44 Journal of Marriage and Family
if LGB people were allowed to marry. Marlo, a concerning hospital visitation and health insur-
21-year-old White lesbian college student whose ance, many participants described advantages
mother had been with her partner, Carol, since that specifically related to their relationships
she was 7, shared, with parental figures. Fifteen participants (13
women and 2 men) described how marriage
I talk about this with Mom and Carol all the time: would reduce the need for second-parent adop-
What if Mom is dying one day and you can’t go tions by a nonlegal parent, a right to which
see her in the hospital because you’re not married some of their parents had not had access while
to her, or something like that? I think [marriage they were growing up. Six of these individuals
equality] is really, really, really important.
specifically described how their nonbiological,
nonlegal parent had attempted to adopt them,
Twelve participants (11 women and 1 man) without success. Rachel, a 22-year-old White
observed that issues surrounding health insur- heterosexual female college student who grew
ance would be resolved if LGB people could up with two mothers, described her relationship
marry. Most of them described how, grow- with her nonbiological mother, Nora, as follows:
ing up, their parents were not able to cover
each other under their health insurance and/or
There is no legal relationship. I think that when . . .
their nonlegal parent (usually their nonbiological I was first born or when I was a little baby, Nora
mother) was not able to cover the partici- tried to adopt me and they tried to go through those
pant under his or her health insurance. Lexy, offices and nothing happened, and it wasn’t able to
a 24-year-old White heterosexual woman who happen. . . . We have gone to lawyers the last few
had been raised primarily by her lesbian biolog- years just in case something should happen to my
ical mother and her mother’s partner, Karen, her mom, so that . . . they can be each other’s next of
‘‘stepmother,’’ explained, kin and I can also be their next of kin if something
should happen to both of them. So there’s still
[Marriage equality] would have affected my life other legal things. [But] I have to say, it was sad to
with my mom and Karen very tangibly and have to go to a lawyer and be like, ‘‘If Nora is in
specifically. I couldn’t drive Karen’s car, because I the hospital I want to be able to visit her because
couldn’t be on her car insurance. Karen had dental she’s my mom.’’
insurance . . . and my mom and I couldn’t be on
her dental insurance. Participants like Rachel alluded to their par-
ents’ efforts to obtain legal safeguards as strate-
Similarly, Dean, a 22-year-old White heterosex- gic actions aimed to minimize legal insecurities.
ual college student whose mother had repart- Being forced to do this (to ‘‘play the game of
nered with a woman after his parents divorced law’’; Ewick & Silbey, 1998, p. 48) was not only
when he was 12, described how he and his sis- experienced as unfair in that it required LGB
ter had fallen through the ‘‘patchwork quilt’’ families to work much harder to obtain even the
when his mother was fired for being gay, leav- most basic legal protections but also was viewed
ing them both without health insurance. Dean as contributing to symbolic inequities within the
noted that ‘‘at the time, my mother’s partner family. Vicky, 19, explained, ‘‘My main prob-
was employed and would have been able to keep lem with it is that I don’t have the same legal
us on her insurance if civil unions or gay mar- rights with one of my parents as I do with the
riage were valid.’’ This situation represents just other one.’’
one concrete example of how legal insecurities In regard to the right to be adopted by
can create the potential for, or may exacerbate, one’s nonbiological parent, 14 participants (10
LGB family members’ exposure to minority women, 3 men, and 1 gender-queer respondent)
stress (Rostosky et al., 2009). emphasized the ways in which marriage would
Indeed, many of the benefits that partici- help with custody issues, by protecting the rights
pants named were benefits that would have of the nonlegal parent or requiring her or him
been conferred via the ‘‘parentage presump- to pay child support and/or live nearby, post-
tion’’ (Rosato, 2006), that is, by virtue of separation. For example, Annie, a 24-year-old
getting married, both of their LGB parents would heterosexual woman, had been raised primar-
have been legally connected to and responsi- ily by her biological lesbian mother and her
ble for them. In addition to describing more mother’s partner, whom she had met when Annie
general advantages of marriage, such as rights was 3. But her mother had originally intended toMarriage (In)equality 45
raise Annie with an ex-partner from whom she terms of its ability to legitimize their families’
had separated when Annie was an infant. The ex- relationships had been raised by LGB parents
partner had tried to gain joint custody of Annie from birth or early childhood. These individuals
but failed: ‘‘She sued for joint custody of me, likely experienced less choice regarding whether
which my mother opposed, and the California to be ‘‘out’’ than those whose heterosexual
court threw it out, because . . . there wasn’t any parents divorced when they were older, and
legal basis for that.’’ Annie, who had no contact they may also have had more extensive and
with this woman, often wondered whether the continuous experiences with marginalization
courts would rule differently today than in at that (Goldberg, 2007). Indeed, they were more
time, which was the late 1980s. Similarly, sev- intimately familiar with the daily and long-term
eral other individuals whose LGB parents had stresses of legal inequality. Highly attuned to
split up also wondered whether court involve- the ways in which their parents’ relationship
ment would have led to more contact with their was delegitimized in the absence of marriage,
nonlegal parent. they may have been especially sensitive to its
Finally, four young women, whose parents potential to legitimize family relations.
were married, described how marriage at the In addition to encouraging outsiders to view
federal level would help alleviate the stress of their relationships as real and valid, seven
dealing with a system in which their parents’ participants (five women and two men) also
relationships were recognized at the state but viewed marriage equality as having the capacity
not the federal level. They discussed their expe- to help immediate family members to define their
riences of filling out college financial aid forms relationships as real for themselves (Lannutti,
to illustrate how such inconsistencies created 2007). For example, two young women noted
dilemmas when it came to accurately portraying that they probably would have been encouraged
their family. For example, they were forced to to view their mothers’ partners—that is, their
indicate that they had been raised by a single par- ‘‘stepmoms’’—as parents and to call them
ent, when in fact they had two married lesbian ‘‘Mom’’ if they had been married to their
parents. mothers. Thus, they viewed marriage as having
the power to lead them to construct certain
Symbolic benefits. A majority of the participants relationships as familial. Kerry, for example,
also emphasized the various symbolic benefits observed that she may have been more likely to
of marriage. These participants, who largely identify her mother’s partner, Jane, as a parent
comprised individuals who were unconditionally if they had been married:
supportive of marriage equality, recognized
that the law has symbolic power, which can I think I see her as being a bit more than just
theoretically promote legitimacy of same-sex an aunt; you know? I see her as somebody who
relationships (Woodford, 2010). In turn, 26 was a caretaker and a big role in my life. And
participants (21 women and five men) noted I’m sure that I would have probably thought of
that marriage marks relationships as intelligible her more as a mom and a parent if they had been
and legitimate and would thus encourage other married, because I would have called her ‘‘Mom.’’
people to recognize their parents’ relationships, Because I didn’t call her ‘‘Mom.’’ I mean, we did
and their families, as ‘‘real’’ (Lannutti, 2007, a lot of stuff as a family. We went on vacations
2008). Kerry, a 23-year-old White heterosexual all together and we went out to movies and out to
woman who had been raised since the age of 5 dinner. I mean, we did all the things that families
by her lesbian mother and her mother’s partner, do, but that still didn’t make it seem like she was
shared the following: my mom. It was more just like a friend/aunt sort
of figure type of person. So I—it may have been
Marriage would make those relationships real to the same. But I think it also had the potential to be
other people. It would make them understand that different.
it’s such a real thing. These are real people, they
want real families, they want real relationships.
Because it’s a nationally recognized process to get Kerry’s musings that marriage might have
married. . . . That’s what you do when you’re in encouraged her to view, and treat, her mother’s
love with someone and you want to have a family. partner as another parent as opposed to just a
friend underscores the power of marriage—as
All but 2 of the 26 participants who a formal and socially recognized bond—to
emphasized the significance of marriage in actually transform other familial relationships.You can also read
