Week Four Discussion Post Asynchronous discussion enhances learning as you share your ideas, perspectives, and experiences wi

235

Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families

Elizabeth A. Suter University of Denver

L esbian and gay families represent a grow-ing population in the United States today. Approximately 2 million U.S. children are currently growing up with a lesbian or gay parent (Movement Advancement Project [MAP], 2011). This number is predicted to rise in coming years as one third of lesbians and over one half of gay men without children plan to parent (MAP, 2011). No longer concentrated in large metropolitan areas, lesbian and gay families can be found in 96% of U.S. counties (MAP, 2011). In fact, in 12 U.S. states, more than 25% of same-sex couples are raising children (Gates & Cooke, 2011). Moreover, lesbian and gay families are racially and ethnically diverse. Same-sex couples are less likely to identify as White as compared to their different-sex coun- terparts and these non-White same-sex couples are more likely to have children than White same- sex couples (MAP, 2011).

Thirty years of social scientific research dem- onstrates that this growing, diverse family form promotes the well-being of its children (Biblarz

& Savci, 2010). Yet, in the face of strong evidence of high family functionality and positive parent- ing outcomes, lesbian and gay parents and their children still face social stigma. Stigmatization of lesbian and gay families is rooted in the domi- nant cultural ideology of heteronormativity. Heteronormativity narrates that the natural, nor- mative, preferred manner in which families are connected is through heterosexual ties (Oswald, Blume, & Marks, 2005). Although the number of lesbian and gay families continues to rise, the powerful normalizing force of heteronormativity frequently positions these families on the mar- gins, as decentered, and as less “natural” than heterosexually-headed families.

As a culturally less-valued family form, lesbian and gay families face a myriad of challenges. Yet, in the face of challenge, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children often demonstrate resilience. The primary goal of this chapter is to review and synthesize the current body of schol- arship on lesbian and gay families. As such, the

CHAPTER 15

236———PART III. Family Forms

first section of this chapter examines extant litera- ture on lesbian and gay families organized within a challenge and resiliency framework. Despite the insights of past scholarship, there is still much to learn about this growing family form, particularly from a communicative perspective. Gay and les- bian families have been primarily studied in allied fields, such as psychology (e.g., Johnson & O’Connor, 2002) and family studies (e.g., Goldberg, 2010) and remain understudied in the field of communication studies. Hence, a second- ary goal of this chapter is to stimulate research on the communicative practices and processes of lesbian and gay families. In pursuit of this goal, this chapter concludes by articulating an agenda for future communication-based research on les- bian and gay families. Review and Synthesis of Extant Literature: Challenges

Lesbian and gay families experience a myriad of challenges. This section reviews and synthe- sizes the extant literature in terms of: (a) chal- lenges to gay and lesbian parents; (b) challenges to children with gay and lesbian parents; (c) chal- lenges in legal and social services contexts; and (d) communicative challenges.

Challenges to Gay and Lesbian Parents

The negative cultural positioning of gay and lesbian parenthood represents a significant chal- lenge to gay fathers and lesbian mothers. Ideologically, U.S. society still positions gay and father as incompatible constructs. Fatherhood continues to be conceived in heteronormative terms (Giesler, 2012). Gay fathers contend with negative social messages (e.g., perceptions that they are unfit parents and untrustworthy around children) associated with their three overlapping identity categories: gay, male, and father (Wells, 2011). Gay adoptive fathers depict themselves as “‘unwanted fathers’ adopting ‘unwanted chil- dren’” (i.e., hard-to-place, mainly older children of color with mental, physical, and/or emotional difficulties) (Broad, Alden, Berkowitz, & Ryan,

2008, p. 513). Likewise, dominant cultural dis- courses position lesbians as inept mothers, lesser-than their heterosexual counterparts (Broad et al., 2008).

Gay fathers and lesbian mothers internalize their negative cultural positioning to lesser or greater degrees. Some believe that coming out negates their potential for parenthood (Berkowitz & Marsiglio, 2007). For those who do become parents, internalized marginaliza- tion troubles the transition to parenthood (Brinamen & Mitchell, 2008). For instance, gay fathers report coping with a heightened sense of visibility and vigilance upon becoming par- ents (Gianino, 2008), and lesbian mothers experience more internalized homophobia than lesbians without children (Demino, Appleby, & Fisk, 2007). Internalized marginal- ization also leads to a decreased internal sense of parental competency. For instance, when comparing gay fathers and heterosexual fathers, Bos (2010) found no significant differences on emotional involvement and parental concern in the father-child relationship, parental burden, or children’s well-being. However, gay fathers reported feeling significantly less competent in their child-rearing role. Moreover, internalized marginalization leads to more parenting stress. For instance, in addition to stress factors shared with heterosexual adoptive parents (e.g., lower levels of perceived social support), gay father’s stigma sensitivity significantly adds to their parenting stress (Tornello, Farr, & Patterson, 2011). Gay fathers’ higher levels of parental justification (needing to externally justify and/ or defend one’s role as a gay father) and lived experiences of societal rejection are signifi- cantly related to higher levels of parental stress (Bos, 2010). Gay- and lesbian-headed families have been identified as highly discourse depen- dent. More reliant on communication for iden- tity building, maintenance, and repair as compared to heterosexually-headed families, gay- and lesbian-headed families are more often called upon to explain, justify, and defend themselves (Galvin & Patrick, 2009).

Chapter 15. Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families ——237

Challenges to Children With Gay and Lesbian Parents

Stigmatization is challenging not only for gay and lesbian parents but also for their children. Children with gay fathers routinely experience peer homophobic teasing and bullying (Berkowitz & Kuvalanka, 2013). Moreover, teachers and school staff reportedly fail not only to intervene when overhearing antigay remarks but also perpetuate antigay comments them- selves (Berkowitz & Kuvalanka, 2013). Similarly, adolescents growing up in lesbian families report peers as the main perpetrators of bullying behav- iors and school as the primary context for bully- ing (van Gelderen, Gartrell, Bos, van Rooij, & Hermanns, 2012). Studies find that today’s early childhood teachers and staff remain unprepared to work with gay and lesbian families (Kitntner- Duffy, Vardell, Lower, & Cassidy, 2012) and continue to report low levels of personal comfort in working with gay and lesbian parents (Averett & Hegde, 2012).

Challenges in Legal and Social Services Contexts

Stigmatization extends beyond the challenges experienced by children in the educational con- text to legal and social services contexts. In the legal context, the lack of a legal and culturally recognizable term for lesbian parents whose partners give birth to their child both discon- firms the legitimacy of their motherhood and impedes lesbian comother maternal identity for- mation (Miller, 2012). In a poignantly concrete example, formal support systems’ tendency to invalidate same-sex family relations undermines the formal help-seeking behaviors of lesbian mothers experiencing intimate partner violence (Hardesty, Oswald, Khaw, & Fonseca, 2011). Relatedly, bereaved lesbian mothers have been found to experience a double disenfranchise- ment wherein “chronic invalidation—socially, legally, psychologically—of their relationship

(and thus implicitly, the grief experience) further ostracizes them,” rendering the bereavement pro- cess more difficult (Cacciatore & Raffo, 2011, p. 175). In the social services context, the dominant cultural discourses of gender and sexuality invoked in the everyday discourse of social work- ers positions gay parenthood and caregiving as unnatural, and maternal gay men as deviants who present problematic models of gender (Hicks, 2006). Lesbian and gay adoptive parents identify perceived discrimination during the adoption process as the greatest barrier faced in becoming parents (Brown, Smalling, Groza, & Ryan, 2009).

Communicative Challenges

These institutional, cultural, and interper- sonal challenges become embodied in specific discursive practices. Lesbian and gay parents interacting with school systems and other exter- nal others experience difficult conversations ranging from complicated (emanating from out- siders’ misunderstandings about the nature of the parent’s relationship) to annoying or frustrating (manifesting in response to external expectations that the same-sex family adapt to heteronorma- tive assumptions about family relations) to pain- ful (arising from direct challenges to the authenticity of the familial relations) (Galvin, Turner, Patrick, & West, 2007). Likewise, lesbian mothers have been found to encounter four main types of discursive legitimacy challenges: com- parison questions (e.g., definitional or role-based confusions arising from default comparisons to different-sex families), direct questions (e.g., direct rebukes of the lesbian family form, non- verbal challenges (e.g., silence, ignoring, nonver- bally hostile behaviors), and master narrative challenges (e.g., grounded in conservative reli- gious or political sanctions of homosexuality). Legitimacy challenges range from direct attacks to silence to legalized discrimination and ema- nate from community members, friends, and even family (Koenig Kellas & Suter, 2012).

238———PART III. Family Forms

Review and Synthesis of Extant Literature: Resilience

Countering persistent cultural assumptions that same-sex families are dysfunctional and some- how deviant, a growing body of literature reports strengths and resiliency factors of the lesbian and gay family form. Lesbian and gay families are highly functioning, bound by close relationships (Johnston, Moore, & Judd, 2010; Leddy, Gartrell, & Bos, 2012). These close, positive relationships foster resilience (Bos & Gartrell, 2010), promote positive coping with stigmatization of parents and children (Ryan & Brown, 2011), and facili- tate positive adolescent adjustment and well- being (Patterson & Wainright, 2011).

Resilience Factors Unique to Gay and Lesbian Families

Not only do lesbian and gay families function at comparable levels to heterosexual families (Ryan & Brown, 2011), lesbian and gay families also manifest strengths and resilience factors unique to their family form. Gay fathers may actually have an easier time managing work- family demands than heterosexual fathers, as gay fathers’ departure from hegemonic masculine gender norms facilitate prioritizing family over work (Richardson, Moyer, & Goldberg, 2012). Furthermore, research finds positive gay and lesbian parenting with the hardest-to-place chil- dren in the U.S. foster care system. Child welfare workers view lesbian and gay prospective parents as more willing than heterosexual parents to raise children with serious physical, emotional, or behavioral problems. Additionally, lesbian and gay parents are viewed as better equipped to par- ent these more challenging children due to higher levels of parental resourcefulness and stronger support systems of extended networks of family and friends (Brooks & Goldberg, 2001). Not only are gay men and lesbians perceived as more open and better equipped, but they also produce higher family functioning outcomes than heterosexuals

for more difficult-to-place foster children, namely sibling groups, older children in general, and older children who have been abused (Erich, Leung, Kindle, & Carter, 2005).

Adding to their unique strengths and resil- iency factors, gay men and lesbians’ experiences of heterosexist stigmatization promote resiliency for adopted children experiencing racism or feel- ings of exclusion. Gay and lesbian parents’ expe- riences of heterosexist oppression promote sensitivity to their minority child’s racial dis- crimination and increase parental capacity to facilitate children’s positive coping (Ausbrooks & Russell, 2011). Furthermore, a mutual sense of marginalization between parent and child has been found to redress adopted children’s feel- ings of exclusion and promote positive attach- ment between parent and child (Rootes, 2013). Gay fathers’ marginalization as a sexual minor- ity and as a man in a caregiver’s role connects with their foster and adopted children’s sense of marginalization and difference from peers with biologically connected families. Gay fathers’ marginalization heightens their empathy, attun- ement, and sensitivity to the child, which in turn bolsters the child’s empathy and attunement, forming a close attachment between father and child (Rootes, 2013).

Communication Resilience

A number of communicative processes have been found to promote resiliency in lesbian and gay families. Disclosure is one such process. Gay men and lesbians have a uniquely challenging task of disclosing their sexual orientation to their children. These disclosures, though, have been linked to positive learning and relational outcomes. Parental disclosure of sexual orienta- tion teaches children about tolerance and the need to honor individual differences (Bigner, 2000). Father-child relationships have been found to increase in intimacy after parental disclo- sure of sexual orientation (Benson, Silverstein, & Auerbach, 2005), and lesbian mothers’

Chapter 15. Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families ——239

coming out has been found to promote family identity-building (Breshears, 2010). Parental disclosures also positively influence youth dis- closure processes—both within and outside the family. In terms of within the family, children of gay and lesbian parents have been found to be more likely to discuss their sexuality with their parents as compared to children of heterosexual parents (Tasker & Golombok, 1997). In terms of outside the family, conversations in early child- hood about family structure and heteronorma- tivity have been found to positively influence youth disclosure processes to peers about family form (Gianino, Goldberg, & Lewis, 2009). However, the age of the child when the parent discloses matters. Golding (2006) found that children whose parents disclosed their lesbian- ism during childhood or late adolescence were more receptive of their mother’s lesbianism, reported more positive coping with social stig- matization, and were more likely to assert resil- ient behavior as compared to children who received the information during early or middle adolescence or early adulthood. Children who were more open about their mothers’ lesbian- ism reported higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of feelings of isolation and unique- ness from other children.

As a discourse dependent family form (Galvin & Patrick, 2009), lesbian and gay families face not only internally challenging conversations, such as discussing a parent’s sexual orientation, but they are also subject to challenging outsider remarks on family difference that contest the validity and morality of their family form (Breshears, 2011). Koenig Kellas and Suter (2012) found that in response to discursive legitimacy, lesbian mothers account for family difference both in ways similar to heterosexual parents (i.e., by offering refusals, justifications, and conces- sions) and in ways unique to the experiences of lesbian mothers. Leading by example constituted a unique lesbian family response strategy in which mothers’ responded to outsider skepticism and challenge by modeling a happy and well- functioning family.

These discourse dependent families promote their own resiliency by both verbal and nonverbal means. Internal family discussions about external challenges promote resiliency. By explicitly dis- cussing the homophobia underlying outsider remarks and helping children understand the love between same-sex parents and their decision to parent as morally ethical, lesbian mothers have been found to actually use intrusive interactions as a way to build family identity (Breshears, 2011). Parental discussions of challenging remarks not only redress the negative identity implications of homophobic comments but also assist children in better handling later peer discrimination. Nonverbally, lesbian and gay parents employ ritu- alistic and symbolic bids to negotiate external affirmation. For instance, as efforts toward secur- ing external identity affirmation for both the fam- ily as a unit and the nonbiological mother as a legitimate mother, lesbian mothers have been found to enact patterned interactions similar to those of heterosexual families, assign parallel address terms for both biological and nonbiologi- cal mothers, share a common family last name, and choose sperm donors that look like the nonbio- logical mother (Bergen, Suter, & Daas, 2006; Ryan & Berkowitz, 2009; Suter, Daas, & Bergen, 2008).

Children’s Resilience

Recent examinations of children with same- sex parents redress long-held negative stereotypes and demonstrate resilience. In the wake of the les- bian baby boom, children raised by lesbian moth- ers from infancy are now old enough for researchers to examine these children—now adolescents— on their own terms. Bos, Goldberg, van Gelderen, & Gartrell (2012) redress a long-held stereotype that the lack of a different gender role model negatively impacts the well-being of children reared in same-sex households. Comparing adolescents with and those without a male role model raised by lesbian mothers, Bos and colleagues found that the absence of a male role model did not nega- tively impact the psychological adjustment of

240———PART III. Family Forms

adolescents. Furthermore, recent research refutes cultural presumptions that these adolescents would manifest significant adjustment difficul- ties. Measuring quality of life, a positive aspect of psychological adjustment, van Gelderen, Bos, Gartrell, Hermanns, and Perrin (2012) found no difference between adolescents raised by lesbian mothers and adolescents raised by heterosexual parents. As they write, “This finding supports earlier evidence that adolescents reared by les- bian mothers from birth do not manifest more adjustment difficulties (e.g., depression, anxiety, and disruptive behaviors) than those reared by heterosexual parents” (van Gelderen et al., 2012, p. 65). These adolescents score high on ratings of well-being, quality of friendships and familial relationships, academic performances, activity involvement, and aspirations (Gartrell, Bos, Peyser, Deck, & Rodas, 2012).

In fact, research documents that adolescents raised by same-sex parents demonstrate resilience in the face of the cultural stigmatization of their families. Homophobic stigmatization has not been found to be associated with lower life satis- faction ratings or substance abuse (Goldberg, Bos, & Gartrell, 2011). Furthermore, the dis- course of lesbian and gay identity as acceptable has been found to occupy the centered position in adult children’s talk about their parents coming out as gay or lesbian, while the discourse of les- bian and gay identity as wrong occupies the more marginalized position (Breshears & Braithwaite, in press). These results suggest that relational discourses may be more salient that the stigmatiz- ing cultural discourses surrounding lesbian and gay families and provide further evidence of chil- dren’s resilience from stigmatization of their fam- ily’s identity (Breshears & Braithwaite, in press).

Fostering Gay and Lesbian Parents’ Identities

Not only has gay and lesbian parenting been found not to harm children as often culturally assumed, gay and lesbian parenting leads to

positive outcomes for both parents and their children. The decision to become a parent has been found to foster gay and lesbian parents’ individual, relational, and familial identities. The transition to parenting has been found to pro- mote closeness in parents’ families-of-origin (Brown et al., 2009) and increase parents’ sense of familial validation (Bergman, Rubio, Green, & Padrón, 2010). On the individual level, becoming parents strongly increases parents’ sense of self- esteem, increases both positivity and pride, brings greater meaning to life, and facilitates identity growth (Bergman et al., 2010; Gianino, 2008). The gay fathers in Brinamen and Mitchell’s (2008) study described how the process of becoming a parent forced them to confront nega- tive cultural messages that positioned their gay male identities as incongruent with their pro- spective father identity. As one participant described this process, “There a line in Moby Dick where the captain is searching for the great white whale, admiring in astonishment the whale’s capacity . . . He says ‘Be thou like the whale’. . . You can be more than you suspect— more than you ever thought is possible” (Brinamen & Mitchell, 2008, pp. 539-540). Likewise, motherhood allows lesbians to negate heteronormative-based cultural discourses that position lesbians as inept at mothering (Broad et al., 2008).

Restructuring the Gender Order

Gay and lesbian parenting disrupts tradi- tional, hegemonic understandings of sexuality and of gender. As such, gay and lesbian parenting holds the potential to restructure the gender order in the present and in the future. For their sons, gay fathers serve as a model of androgyny, offering an alternative to traditional masculine role development (Bigner, 2000). Children of gay fathers exhibit increased empathy, tolerance, and acceptance of difference. Lesbian mothers func- tion as positive role models of women’s financial and emotional independence from men and

Chapter 15. Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families ——241

egalitarianism in domestic life that their hetero- sexual daughters have transferred to their own relations with men (Saffron, 1998). Gay and les- bian parenting also engenders a future restruc- turing of current hierarchies (Broad et al., 2008). Scholars expect that it is reasonable to assume that children raised in same-sex families will positively influence future generations’ negotia- tions of gender inequality (Berkowitz, 2011b).

Race, Ethnicity and Social Location Matter

Strengths, resilience, and positive outcomes may not be same across all same-sex families, however. Research findings demonstrate that race, ethnicity, and social location matter. For some, the intersection of class and racial privilege with sexual marginalization promotes positivity in adoption processes and experiences. For instance, Berkowitz (2011a) found that gay adopting fathers’ social location as White eco- nomically privileged men positively shaped their adoptive experiences, allowing them to success- fully navigate adoptive racial and class hierar- chies in ways inaccessible to gay men with non-White bodies and less economic power. However, the intersections of race, ethnicity, and social location with sexual marginalization are not always positive. For instance, Rincon and Trung Lam’s (2011) examination of perceptions of Latina mothers towards Latina lesbian parents found that more than one fourth of participants perceived Latina lesbian parenting as abnormal and remained concerned that the children would be confused about their own sexual preference, miss having a father, and be subjected to peer teasing and be socially ostracized.

Context Matters

Research finds that in addition to race, eth- nicity, and social location, context matters. One aspect of context—community climate—weighs

significantly. Community climate is defined as the degree of community support for homosexu- ality as measured by religious and political affili- ations, legal rights, workplace opportunities and policies, and the presence of gay, lesbian, bisex- ual, and transgender (GLBT) community mem- bers and services and ranges from hostile to supportive (Oswald, Cuthbertson, Lazarevic, & Goldberg, 2010). Affirmative social environ- ments have been found to counter the negative impact of homophobia on the well-being of children raised in same-sex families. For instance, inclusion of LGBT school curriculum and mothers’ higher levels of identification with a lesbian community have been found to serve as protective factors and foster resilience in young children (Bos, Gartrell, Peyser, & van Balen, 2008). Community climate has also been found to predict the well-being of adult children of gay and lesbian parents. Whereas some social poli- cies (e.g., lesbian and gay hate-crime policies) have been found to predict positive well-being, population characteristics, such as residing in a densely populated area with a high-proportion of same-sex couples, are the strongest predictor of positive well-being (Lick, Riskind, & Patterson, 2012). Same-sex prospective parents residing in small metropolitan areas report barriers unique to their communities. Yet, living without gay- friendly adoption agencies in their communities, same-sex adopting couples have been found to manifest resourcefulness, such as seeking out informal support to cope with the minority stress and limited support in their communities (Kinkler & Goldberg, 2011).

Beyond community climate, legal and social climates are two other significant aspects of con- text. Comparisons of U.S. same-sex family mem- bers to family members outside the United States find that U.S. legal and social contexts negatively impact both parents and children. For instance, research suggests that perceived discrimination and marginal legal status is correlated with more mental health problems for U.S. lesbian mothers. U.S. lesbian mothers report more family worries about legal status and discrimination and more

242———PART III. Family Forms

depressive symptoms as compared to Canadian lesbian mothers (Shapiro, Peterson, & Stewart, 2009). Nonaffirming legal and social climates have also been found to negatively impact U.S. children. As compared to their counterparts in the Netherlands, who live in a social climate more accepting of same-sex marriage and par- enting, U.S. children are less open with peers about growing up in a lesbian family and experi- ence greater levels of homophobia (Bos, Gartrell, van Balen, Peyser, & Sandfort, 2008). Higher levels of anticipated homonegativity have been found to negatively predict children’s disclosures about their parents’ sexual orientation (Tasker & Granville, 2011). Furthermore, the lack of c-parent adoption has been found to decrease the psycho- logical well-being of adolescents with same-sex parents. For instance, adolescents whose mothers are not recognized as legal coparents report lower levels of family closeness and a lower sense of felt security (Gartrell, Bos, Peyser, Deck, & Rodas, 2011).

Future Research

As evidenced by this review and synthesis of the extant literature on lesbian and gay families, the communication discipline is rather late to the study of gay and lesbian parenting. With the excep- tion of West and Turner (1995), communication scholars did not begin contributing to the conver- sation until the mid to late 2000s. Since then, com- munication research remains limited. For instance, less than 15% of the studies synthesized for this chapter were conducted by communication scholars. Currently, knowledge on lesbian and gay families is largely indebted to research in allied fields, such as family studies, sociology, and psychology. However, there is no doubt that work to date is foundational. Yet, continued research by communication scholars is needed to contribute to our knowledge about lesbian and gay-headed families.

In the most recent decade, communica- tion scholars have issued calls for research on

nontraditional families’ communication patterns and processes. For instance, a special issue on “Communication and Diversity in Contemporary Families” (Turner & West, 2003) appearing in The Journal of Family …