gay couples essay

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gay Marriage — The Complex Issue of Gay Marriage

The Complex Issue of Gay Marriage

Categories: Gay Marriage

About this sample

Words: 537 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 537 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Introduction, historical context, arguments supporting gay marriage, arguments against gay marriage, counterarguments and refutations, case studies and comparative analysis.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1011 words

5 pages / 2332 words

3 pages / 1222 words

1 pages / 642 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gay Marriage

Over the past few decades, the debate surrounding the legalization of gay marriage has been at the forefront of political and social discussions. While many countries and states have made significant progress in legalizing [...]

The issue of gay marriage has been a topic of extensive debate, sparking discussions on both sides of the spectrum. This essay aims to delve into the arguments for and against gay marriage, exploring how they are wielded in the [...]

Marriage has always been a fundamental institution in our societies, a vow to cherish and love one another until death do us part. However, for too long, the definition of marriage has been limited to the union between a man and [...]

The debate over same-sex marriage has been a outstanding case, specifically in the Tunisian society where LGBTQ rights are to this day hinder. Thus, many humans still disagree with same-sex marriage whilst others are for [...]

Close your eyes and imagine that you are seeing a beautiful couple who are obviously in love. You also notice a baby stroller and an adorable baby boy in it. You see their hands and notice that they both are wearing a wedding [...]

In India we have an archaic law pertaining to prisons. The purpose of prison is still hanging between it offering a chance to improve or to inflict maximum suffering on the offender. Over the years, the approach has radically [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Gay Marriage Is Good for America

Subscribe to governance weekly, jonathan rauch jonathan rauch senior fellow - governance studies @jon_rauch.

June 21, 2008

By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week. The first to be wed in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, pioneering gay-rights activists who have been a couple for more than 50 years.

More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California’s voters. They should choose to keep it. To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn’t happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question.

Imagine that in the law’s eyes you and your soul mate will never be more than acquaintances. And now add even more strangeness. Imagine coming of age into a whole community, a whole culture, without marriage and the bonds of mutuality and kinship that go with it.

What is this weird world like? It has more sex and less commitment than a world with marriage. It is a world of fragile families living on the shadowy outskirts of the law; a world marked by heightened fear of loneliness or abandonment in crisis or old age; a world in some respects not even civilized, because marriage is the foundation of civilization.

This was the world I grew up in. The AIDS quilt is its monument.

Few heterosexuals can imagine living in such an upside-down world, where love separates you from marriage instead of connecting you with it. Many don’t bother to try. Instead, they say same-sex couples can get the equivalent of a marriage by going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork – as if heterosexual couples would settle for anything of the sort.

Even a moment’s reflection shows the fatuousness of “Let them eat contracts.” No private transaction excuses you from testifying in court against your partner, or entitles you to Social Security survivor benefits, or authorizes joint tax filing, or secures U.S. residency for your partner if he or she is a foreigner. I could go on and on.

Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can’t go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn’t have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.

This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples – including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.

Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.

Nowadays, even opponents of same-sex marriage generally concede it would be good for gay people. What they worry about are the possible secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality?

Space doesn’t permit me to treat those and other objections in detail, beyond noting that same-sex marriage no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious freedom.

I’ll also note, in passing, that these arguments conscript homosexuals into marriagelessness in order to stop heterosexuals from making bad decisions, a deal to which we gay folks say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” We wonder how many heterosexuals would give up their own marriage, or for that matter their own divorce, to discourage other people from making poor policy choices. Any volunteers?

Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits. Still, it’s wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what the country is doing.

By the same token, however, honest opposition requires acknowledging that there are risks and unforeseen consequences on both sides of the equation. Some of the unforeseen consequences of allowing same-sex marriage will be good, not bad. And barring gay marriage is risky in its own right.

America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.

There are two ways to see the legal marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. One is as the start of something radical: an experiment that jeopardizes millennia of accumulated social patrimony. The other is as the end of something radical: an experiment in which gay people were told that they could have all the sex and love they could find, but they could not even think about marriage. If I take the second view, it is on conservative – in fact, traditional – grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step.

Children & Families

Governance Studies

Nariman Moustafa

October 20, 2023

Anusha Bharadwaj

September 29, 2023

Sophia Espinoza, Charlotte Wright, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek

July 18, 2023

Relationships

Two Decades of LGBTQ Relationships Research

To what extent is relationship science reflective of lgbtq+ experiences.

Posted September 29, 2022 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

Why Relationships Matter
Find a therapist to strengthen relationships
While same-sex marriage has been legal in some jurisdictions for two decades, relationships research continues to focus on mixed-sex couples.
A review of 2,181 relationship science articles published since 2001 found that 85.8% excluded LGBTQ+ relationships.
Without LGBTQ+ relationships research, it is hard to provide empirically-supported advice to same-sex and gender-diverse relationships.

In 2014, I attended the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology—one of the largest annual social psychology conferences. The conference covers a wide range of topics and one of the sub-areas is Close Relationships, which hosts a wonderful pre-conference each year leading up to the larger event. As I found myself strolling through the poster presentations for this section of the conference, I began to notice that most of them were reporting the results of research conducted with mixed-sex and presumably heterosexual couples. The pattern became so apparent that I decided to review each poster a bit more systematically and to ask the presenters some standard questions about the demographics of their samples. I was able to visit 58 of the 71 posters listed on the program for the Close Relationships section—there were quite a few posters missing due to a horrendous winter storm that made the annual trip to SPSP impossible for many. Of the posters reviewed, only 15.5% included LGBTQ participants and only one study specifically focused on LGBTQ relationships. Following the conference, I wrote an article for the Relationships Research Newsletter published by the International Association for Relationships Research discussing the "state of LGBTQ-inclusive research methods" in the field of relationship science.

The following year, a somewhat more systematic approach to evaluating the inclusion of sexual minority couples in research was undertaken by Judith Andersen and Christopher Zou, who published their findings in the Health Science Journal . Their analysis focused on the inclusion of sexual minority couples in research relevant to relationships and health and they focused on publications indexed by Medline and PsychINFO between 2002-2012. Their results indicated that a striking 88.7% of the studies reviewed had excluded sexual minority couples from participating—meaning that even fewer of the papers in their sample were inclusive than my snapshot of the posters presented during the 2014 Close Relationships Poster Session.

Fast forward nearly another decade and the International Association for Relationship Research decided to launch two special issues of their flagship journals, Personal Relationships and the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , dedicated to reviewing the last two decades of relationship science. Along with two other leading researchers in the area of LGBTQ+ relationships, I was invited to write a review focused on LGBTQ+ relationship science. The burning question in my mind was whether or not we would see a stark increase in inclusion as time progressed. After all, the two decades spanning 2002-2022 represent a time of significant advancements for LGBTQ+ civil rights, particularly those related to the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

What Is the State of LGBTQ Inclusion in Relationships Research Today?

To answer this question, we gathered every single article published in Personal Relationships (PR) and the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (JSPR) starting in 2002 until April 2021. This resulted in 2,181 articles; 1,392 articles from JPSR and 789 from PR. We used a variety of coding techniques, including automatic keyword coding and manual screening of articles, to identify which articles contained any information relevant to LGBTQ+ identities and relationships. Roughly 85.8% of these articles were excluded from further analysis as they did not contain any words relevant to sexual or gender minority identities or relationships. The remaining 329 articles were manually coded to identify how they handled issues related to sexual and gender identity . Some articles mentioned LGBTQ+ issues in their limitations section (n = 58), for example to state that future research should consider testing similar questions with a more inclusive and diverse sample. Another 42 articles explicitly stated that they excluded LGBTQ+ participants from their recruitment or analysis process, and while this may seem harsh, it still reflects a methodological improvement over the 1,852 articles that did not even provide adequate information to understand how the exclusion process took place. Some studies did include LGBTQ+ participants in their recruitment process and analyses, but often the sample sizes were small, meaning that no further efforts were taken to understand whether LGBTQ+ participants had unique experiences.

Ultimately, of the 2,181 articles published in these two journals between 2002 and April 2021, 92 articles, or 4.2%, presented LGBTQ-relevant information that we considered capable of providing empirical evidence concerning the lives and experiences of sexual and gender minorities within the context of close relationships. Thus, with only 4.2% of the articles being LGBTQ-relevant, our review of two decades of relationship science research did not seem to suggest that great improvement was occurring over time.

Has LGBTQ Inclusion Increased Over Time?

However, when we broke our data down into smaller periods, we did see a slight indication of improvement over time for the general inclusion of LGBTQ+ participants in relationship science published in these two journals. For example, research published in Personal Relationships climbed from roughly 2% of articles being LGBTQ-relevant between 2002 and 2006 to a peak of just over 4% in 2012-2015, a rate that either slightly decreased or remained constant for the final five-year period, 2016-2021. The Journal of Social and Personal Relationships had a somewhat higher inclusion rate over time, with roughly 3.5% of articles in 2002-2006 being LGBTQ-relevant, peaking at nearly 6% between 2007-2011, and then settling back between 4% and 5% for the periods ranging from 2012-2015 and 2016-2021. Despite these slight differences, overall, there was no significant difference between the proportion of articles considered LGBTQ-relevant in each of the two journals reviewed.

Additional Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion

Most of the research in the review that was deemed "LGBTQ-relevant" tended to explore the LGBTQ+ community as a whole, rather than presenting studies that specifically explored the experiences of one identity group or another (e.g., lesbian women vs. gay men). Only one of the 92 articles exclusively focused on the experiences of bisexual individuals and 54.3% of the LGBTQ-relevant articles did not include bisexuals in their sample at all. The overall body of research also had an androcentric slant, such that 17.4% of the articles focused exclusively on sexual minority men while only 9.8% focused exclusively on sexual minority women.

Finally, although our interest was in exploring relationship science that was considered relevant to LGBTQ+ populations, a better descriptor would be LGBQ, as very few of the studies included transgender , non-binary, or gender-diverse relationship experiences. In total, 15 articles included transgender participants while only four included non-binary participants.

LGBTQ+ Specific Journals

Of course, this review focused on two of the leading relationship science journals and thus did not cover research published in other journals. Anecdotally, many researchers working in LGBTQ psychology and related areas note that when they try to publish in mainstream journals, reviewers often recommend that they send their LGBTQ-relevant research to more specialized, niche journals. Thus, there is likely more research on LGBTQ+ relationship experiences in journals such as Psychology & Sexuality , LGBT Health, Journal of Lesbian Studies, Journal of Homosexuality, and the APA Journal of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. However, none of these journals specifically focus on relationship science and may not be widely read by other scholars studying relationships specifically. While one of the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive research is that it helps us to better understand the experiences within this specific population, such research also benefits the wider population, as often LGBTQ-inclusive research suggests new and novel questions that help to shed light on relationship experiences that are relevant to all individuals, regardless of sexual or gender identity.

Despite the indication that there is still a long way to go in terms of encouraging broad inclusion of LGBTQ+ experiences in mainstream relationship research, there were still many positive signs. The overall trajectory of inclusion appears to be increasing over time, conferences are beginning to include specific programming on how to increase the inclusivity of relationship research, and the editors of the special issues celebrating the past two decades of relationship science saw fit to include a review that was specific to LGBTQ+ relationship experiences. The review concluded by noting that we, the authors, were "looking forward to the next 20 years" of LGBTQ-inclusive relationship research, with a specific "focus on deciphering the minutiae of all the colourful intersection of identity that make up the true richness of human relationships."

Pollitt, A. M., Blair, K. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2022). A review of two decades of LGBTQ‐inclusive research in JSPR and PR . Personal Relationships . https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12432

Andersen, J. P., & Zou, C. (2015). Exclusion of sexual minority couples from research. Health Science Journal, 9(6), 1.

Blair, K. L., McKenna, O., & Holmberg, D. (2022). On guard: Public versus private affection-sharing experiences in same-sex, gender-diverse, and mixed-sex relationships . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 02654075221090678.

Karen Blair, Ph.D. , is an assistant professor of psychology at Trent University. She researches the social determinants of health throughout the lifespan within the context of relationships.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ignited a nationwide debate in late 2003 when it ruled that the state must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Almost overnight, same-sex marriage became a major national issue, pitting religious and social conservatives against gay-rights advocates and their allies. Over the next year, the ensuing battle over gay marriage could be heard in the halls of the U.S. Congress, in dozens of state legislatures and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at the national and state level.

The debate over same-sex marriage shows no signs of abating. In California, for instance, a high-profile case challenging the constitutionality of a state law banning same-sex marriage was argued before the state’s highest court in early March 2008, with a decision expected by May. 1 A similar suit is on the verge of being decided by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. In addition, Florida will hold a referendum during the November 2008 election on a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. Other states, such as Arizona and Indiana, are considering putting similar referenda on the November ballot.

Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that gay and lesbian couples should be treated no differently than their heterosexual counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. Beyond wanting to uphold the principle of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, supporters say that there are very practical reasons behind the fight for marriage equity. They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry — from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.

Social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex unions assert that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they argue, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in deep trouble due to high divorce rates and the significant number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, they predict, giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.

The American religious community is deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups have played a leading role in public opposition to gay marriage, while mainline Protestant churches and other religious groups wrestle with whether to ordain gay clergy and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Indeed, the ordination and marriage of gay persons has been a growing wedge between the socially liberal and conservative wings of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, leading some conservative congregations and even whole dioceses to break away from their national churches. 2

Polls show that frequency of worship service attendance is a factor in the opposition to gay marriage. According to an August 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage, with 36% favoring it. But those with a high frequency of church attendance oppose it by a substantially wider margin (73% in opposition vs. 21% in favor). Opposition among white evangelicals, regardless of frequency of church attendance, is even higher — at 81%. A majority of black Protestants (64%) and Latino Catholics (52%) 3 also oppose gay marriage, as do pluralities of white, non-Hispanic Catholics (49%) and white mainline Protestants (47%). Only among Americans without a religious affiliation does a majority (60%) express support.

However, a 2006 Pew survey found that sizable majorities of white mainline Protestants (66%), Catholics (63%) and those without a religious affiliation (78%) favor allowing homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that grant most of the legal rights of marriage without the title. The general public also supports civil unions (54% in favor vs. 42% in opposition). As with gay marriage, white evangelicals (66%), black Protestants (62%) and frequent church attenders (60%) stand out for their opposition to civil unions. 4

The same-sex marriage debate is not solely an American phenomenon. Many countries, especially in Europe, have grappled with the issue as well. And since 2001, four nations — the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa — have legalized gay marriage. In addition, the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec in Canada now allow same-sex couples to legally marry. 5

The Debate Begins

Gay Americans have been calling for the right to marry, or at least to create more formalized relationships, since the 1960s, but same-sex marriage has only emerged as a national issue in the last 15 years. The spark that started the debate came from Hawaii in 1993 when the state’s Supreme Court ruled that an existing law banning same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional unless the state government could show that it had a compelling reason for discriminating against gay and lesbian couples.

Even though this decision did not immediately lead to the legalization of gay marriage in the state (the case was sent back to a lower court for further consideration), it did spark a nationwide backlash. Over the next decade, legislatures in more than 40 states passed what are generally called Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), which define marriage solely as the union between a man and a woman. Today, 42 states have DOMAs on the books. In addition, in 1996 the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a federal DOMA that defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union between a man and a woman. The law also asserts that no state can be forced to legally recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Beginning in the late 1990s, Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada amended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. These constitutional changes were aimed at taking the issue out of the hands of judges. Conservatives, in particular, feared that without constitutional language specifically defining marriage, many judges would take it upon themselves to read other constitutional provisions broadly and “create” a right to same-sex marriage.

Amid widespread efforts in many states to prevent same-sex marriage, there was at least one notable victory for gay-rights advocates during this period. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to all of the rights and protections associated with marriage. However, the court left it up to the state legislature to determine how to grant these rights to same-sex couples. The following year, the Vermont legislature approved a bill granting gay and lesbian couples the right to form civil unions. Under Vermont’s law, same-sex couples who enter into a civil union accrue all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage, though they are not technically married.

The Goodridge Case and its Aftermath

Although the debate over gay marriage for a while seemed to fade from the public eye, the issue was suddenly and dramatically catapulted back into the headlines in November 2003 when the highest state court in Massachusetts ruled that the state’s constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Unlike the Vermont high court’s decision four years earlier, the ruling in this case, Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health , left the legislature no options, requiring it to pass a law granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples. 6

In the days and weeks following the 2003 Massachusetts decision, some cities and localities — including San Francisco, CA; Portland, Ore.; and New Paltz, N.Y. — began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Television images of long lines of same-sex couples waiting for marriage licenses outside of government offices led some social conservatives and others to predict that same-sex marriage would soon be a reality in many parts of the country. But these predictions proved premature.

To begin with, all the marriage licenses issued to gay couples outside of Massachusetts were later nullified since none of the mayors and other officials involved had the authority to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More significantly, the Massachusetts decision led to another major backlash at the federal and state level. In the U.S. Congress, conservative lawmakers, with support from President Bush, attempted to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have banned same-sex marriage nationwide. But efforts to obtain the two-thirds majority needed in both houses to pass the amendment fell short in 2004 and again in 2006.

Gay-marriage opponents had better luck at the state level, where voters in 13 states passed referenda in 2004 amending their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Ten more states took the same step in 2005 and 2006, bringing the total number of states with amendments prohibiting gay marriage to 26. So far, voters in only one state — Arizona in 2006 — have rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. And only New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island have no law either banning or allowing gay marriage.

The same-sex marriage debate may have had an impact on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Ohio, which in 2004 was holding a referendum on a constitutional ban on gay marriage, was the state that ultimately gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to beat Sen. John Kerry. Bush, who narrowly won the state, opposed gay marriage and supported a federal constitutional amendment banning it. Kerry also came out against gay marriage but opposed the constitutional ban and supported civil unions. It has been noted that the president’s share of the black vote in Ohio (16%) was more than his share of the black vote nationwide (11%). Many political analysts attribute Bush’s narrow victory in Ohio at least in part to the fact that some pastors, particularly black pastors, made same-sex marriage a campaign issue, prompting more of their congregants to vote for Bush.

Most of the states that approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are in the more socially conservative South and Midwest. In more socially liberal states, the cause for same-sex marriage has fared somewhat better. Since 2005, three Northeastern states — Connecticut, New Hampshire and New Jersey — have joined Vermont and passed laws authorizing civil unions. In addition, Maine, Oregon, Washington state and California have enacted domestic partnership statutes that grant many, though not all, the benefits of marriage to registered domestic partners. In 2006, the California legislature also passed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage — so far the only state legislature to do so. But the measure was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that the issue was best left to the courts.

But state high courts have, so far, declined to follow Massachusetts’ lead and mandate same-sex marriage. Indeed, in the last two years, a number of top courts in more socially liberal states –New York, Washington state and Maryland — have rejected arguments in favor of gay unions. Thus Massachusetts remains the only state that allows same-sex marriage; more than 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have married there since 2004.

The immediate future of the same-sex marriage debate appears, to a large degree, to mirror the recent past. On one hand, gay-rights advocates are now pushing for court victories in California and Connecticut. Meanwhile, opponents are looking to the November 2008 election, seeking to have constitutional gay-marriage bans placed on the ballot in as many as 10 states, including Arizona and Indiana. No one knows how these various efforts will ultimately end. But it is a safe bet that the issue will likely remain a part of the nation’s political and legal landscape for years to come.

Find More Resources on Gay Marriage at pewresearch.org/pewresearch-org/religion

1 See From Griswold to Goodridge : The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate .

2 See Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Gay Marriage .

3 See: “ Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion ,” Pew Forum and Pew Hispanic Center, conducted in 2006 and published in 2007.

4 See A Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage .

5 See Same-Sex Marriage: Redefining Marriage Around the World .

6 See From Griswold to Goodridge : The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate .

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Religion & Social Values
Same-Sex Marriage

8 in 10 Americans Say Religion Is Losing Influence in Public Life

How people around the world view same-sex marriage, the pope is concerned about climate change. how do u.s. catholics feel about it, across u.s. religious groups, more see decline of marriage as negative than positive, 5 facts about religion in south and southeast asia, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Search Menu
Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Emotions
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Variation
Language Families
Language Acquisition
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Lexicography
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Linguistic Anthropology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Culture
Music and Religion
Music and Media
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Society
Law and Politics
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Oncology
Medical Toxicology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Clinical Neuroscience
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Medical Ethics
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Games
Computer Security
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Psychology
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business History
Business Strategy
Business Ethics
Business and Government
Business and Technology
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic Methodology
Economic Systems
Economic History
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Theory
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Politics and Law
Public Administration
Public Policy
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Relationship Science and Couple Interventions

< Previous chapter
Next chapter >

17 Couple Therapy with Same-Sex and Gender-Variant (LGBT) Couples: Sociocultural Problems and Intrapsychic and Relational Consequences

Valory Mitchell is an experienced clinical psychologist working in Berkeley, California.

Published: 13 January 2014
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

Same-sex and gender-variant couples are similar to heterosexual/gender-traditional couples in many ways. However, lesbian, gay, and bisexual couples and couples with one or both transgender partners (LGBT couples) exist in a stigmatizing environment that provides no social structures for them. As a result, these couples face three types of challenges: minority stress, lack of social support, and role and relational ambiguity. The author reviews research on these three challenges and offers specific techniques to address them. A conceptual model creates a bridge between sociocultural challenges and the psychological-relational consequences, affording therapists an understanding of how to plan and implement effective interventions. In addition, seven basic premises provide parameters for work with LGBT couples.

Same-sex relationships are like heterosexual relationships in many ways ( Gottman et al., 2003 ; Kurdek, 2005 ; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ). Similarly, most lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth, like their heterosexual and gender-traditional age-mates, aspire to stable monogamous relationships, marriage, and parenting ( D’Augelli, Rendina, Grossman, & Sinclair, 2007 ). Lannutti (2007) , reviewing this body of comparative research, finds only one major difference between heterosexual and same-sex relationships: same-sex relationships exist in a “stigmatized and non-institutionalized context” (p. 136). This context creates three areas of challenge for LGB couples: minority stress, role and relational ambiguity, and insufficient social support ( Bepko & Johnson, 2000 ; Green & Mitchell, 2008 ).

By loving someone of the same sex, LGB people violate one of this society’s most fundamental gender norms. Societal outrage at this violation has taken many forms, though research indicates that antigay attitudes are most strongly associated with conservative social attitudes, fundamentalist religious beliefs, and gender role traditionalism ( Herek, 1998 ). A vividly visible institutional example is the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act (named in a way that suggests that marriage is somehow under attack), which excluded same-sex couples from legal protection and social validation.

Couples that include a transgender partner also violate gender norms. Those norms assert that gender must be assigned at birth, last a lifetime, and result in traditional gendered roles to be manifested in appearance, manner, personality, interests, distribution of tasks, and relational style. As a result of their shared violation of societal gender norms, whether they are heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, or gay, couples that include a transgender partner share many of the minority stresses and much of the marginalization, invalidation, and ambiguity that challenge same-sex couples. However, to date, there is only one published psychological research article ( Pfeffer, 2010 ) on couples with a transgender member, 1 so the present chapter is a first and must rely almost exclusively on clinical understandings.

This chapter will begin with a review of research on the three areas of challenge—minority stress, relational ambiguity, and social support—and will describe specific techniques to assist LBG and transgender (LBGT) couples with these challenges. It will then build a bridge between these sociocultural problems and their intrapsychic and relational consequences in order to describe the parameters of effective interventions. The chapter concludes with seven fundamental premises that inform understanding and intervention on behalf of same-sex and gender-variant couples.

Minority Stress

Minority stress is psychosocial stress that results from being a member of a stigmatized and marginalized minority group ( Brooks, 1981 ). Historically, this type of stress has been significant for LGBT people, and it continues to influence their lives. Until the Supreme Court struck down the law in 2003, homosexuality was illegal in many states, and data from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2003, cited in Mohr and Fassinger, 2006 , p. 1086), lead them to conclude, “Stigmatization of same-sex couples is pervasive in the United States.” Rejection, ridicule, discrimination, and violence against transgender people have been widely documented ( Brown & Rounsley, 1996 ; Clements-Nolle, Marx, & Katz, 2006 ; Israel & Tarver, 1997 ).

Sexual orientation and gender expression affect the couple’s relationship to almost all other entities in society—family, work, school, religious institutions, government, etc. No matter how mundane their everyday lives, they are caught in a vortex of conflicting attitudes—support, neglect, ridicule, hostility. While much U.S. discrimination is not overtly aggressive, LGBT people remain vigilant. Vociferous and visible antigay prejudice often emerges in states engaged with the same-sex marriage debate and has been shown to escalate minority stress and anxiety about being in a same-sex relationship for couples living there ( Levitt et al., 2009 ; Porche & Purvin, 2008 ; Riggle, Rostosky, & Horne, 2010 ; Shulman, Weck, Schwing, Smith, & Coale, 2009 ; Todosijevic, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2005 ). In addition, LGBT people are increasingly exposed to images of violence against them around the world.

When clients come to therapy specifically for LGBT issues, these issues often involve the struggle between their own gay- or trans-affirmative beliefs and the damage done by the homophobic/heterocentric/gender-traditional attitudes and behavior of others, fears and threats stemming from those attitudes, or self-hatred and self-limitation induced by internalizing these negative beliefs. For the LGBT minorities, external minority stressors include the experience of prejudice, rejection, marginalization, discrimination, and hate crimes, as well as the stress involved in hiding and concealing sexual orientation and/or gender variance in an effort to prevent such discrimination. Internal minority stressors include fear, expectations of rejection, stigma sensitivity, and internalized homophobia/biphobia/transphobia (negative beliefs and attitudes from the society that become internalized and turned against the self; diPlacido, 1998 ; Meyer, 2003 ). For bisexual and transgender people, stressors may also include exclusion within lesbian and gay communities ( Hequembourg & Brallier, 2009 ; Rust, 2000 ; Weiss, 2011 ).

Many LGBT people are members of multiple minorities (ethnic, gender, class, age, ability, etc.) and encounter increased stress as a result ( Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, & Stirratt, 2009 ). Each minority status is associated with less power and fewer resources than are available to members of dominant/privileged groups. It is essential that the therapist understand the choices made by couples in the context of their culture and in the context of a larger society marred by prejudice and discrimination. Failure to do so is oppressive, as these decisions often reflect a realistic assessment of potential consequences.

An especially painful locus of minority stress can be the actual or feared rejection after coming out, particularly to the family of origin. For many LGBT people, coming out culminates in a comfortable, welcoming social network, and LGBT couples increasingly choose to live “outside the closet” ( Seldman, 2002 ). However, for others, self-disclosure may be too dangerous, or important individuals or institutions may fail to accept their relationships ( Connelly, 2006 ). Coming out to family is frightening or dangerous to the extent that the LGBT person expects his or her news to evoke a negative response ( Johnston & Jenkins, 2004 ). These negative responses make sense only in relation to the set of meanings that being LGBT holds for the recipient of the news—often a set of meanings that are markedly different from those held by the LGBT person ( Pearlman, 2006 ).

The Impact of Minority Stress on Couples

Minority stress, especially internalized homophobia and stigma sensitivity, is negatively related to couple satisfaction and relationship quality in LGB relationships ( Balsam & Szymanski, 2005 ; Frost & Meyer, 2009 ; Mohr & Fassinger, 2006 ; Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006 ). Similarly, perceived disapproval of the relationship is associated with lower relationship commitment and less investment in the relationship in same-sex, age-different, and biracial couples ( Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006 ); insofar as gender-variant couples experience disapproval of their relationship, they are likely to experience similar dynamics.

Internalized negative beliefs and attitudes are also damaging on the individual level and are associated with lower self-esteem and depression, along with related self-destructive behaviors ( Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003 ; Meyer, 2003 ; Meyer & Dean, 1998 ; Wight, LeBlanc, DeVries, & Detels, 2012 ) that, in turn, can deplete and diminish the couple’s experience ( Green & Mitchell, 2008 ).

If each partner is highly self-accepting, external minority stress is more manageable (unless it results in physical violence). Every LGBT person deals with minority stress, but if one or both partners have not yet overcome their internalized negative beliefs, the relationship can be threatened, directly or indirectly, by even subtle discrimination and vigilance. For example, fear of being affectionate in public can combine with internalized self-condemnation, leaving one or both partners feeling that they are bad, sick, defective, ashamed, unworthy, sick, or sinful. Todosijevic, Rothblum, and Solomon (2005) found that “same-sex couples that are prone to experiencing negative feelings (e.g., depression, anxiety, fear, anger, guilt, neuroticism, sadness) may tend to hang on to negative personal or environmental attributes and are likely to amplify the significance of negative events in their relationships” (p. 165).

When internalized minority stress is triggered, the effects can have negative consequences for the couple, including unexplained arguments (where frustration is displaced onto the partner or self-hatred turns into criticism of the partner), decreased sexual desire (caused by guilt or inhibition), and/or depression or emotional withdrawal (because of feeling unworthy or ambivalent; Green & Mitchell, 2008 ). Internalized minority stress may affect a couple’s satisfaction at any time throughout their lives, particularly when they are considering new options, such as parenthood or moves to retirement communities ( Hunter, 2005 ).

Some families are willing to accept an LGB member as long as that person remains (or seems to remain) single. Examples of this include failure to invite or welcome the couple for holidays, celebrations, and family gatherings; unwillingness to visit the couple or to inquire about the partner in phone calls or conversations; and refusal to show or display photographs of the couple in family albums or “galleries.” Frequently, families create a split in the couple by urging the family member to visit and celebrate holidays without the partner. Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, and Krowinski, (2003) found that couple partners, compared with single LGB people, felt more stress; this stress was related to family acceptance of their partner as well as greater concern over a lack of acceptance from society at large. Condemnation by family can remain a complex issue across the life span, as Cayleff (2010) shows in her discussion of couples involved in caregiving of elderly homophobic parents.

Interventions to Work With Minority Stress

In some couples, partners have very different levels of comfort with their gender and/or sexual orientation. In gender-variant couples, the person who is transitioning may want the partner to choose a more traditional expression of gender, but the partner may not feel comfortable doing so. Here, individual therapy may be appropriate, especially if the partner feeling greater stress is ashamed to explore it in front of the more comfortable or more variant partner. However, if partners are at similar levels of comfort/discomfort with their gender and/or sexual orientation, they can benefit from doing this work together.

Five techniques for targeting the impact of minority stress on LGBT couples have emerged from research and practice: externalizing the problem, unpacking the history of minority stress, reducing internalized negative beliefs, establishing positive associations, and considering realistic alternatives.

Externalizing the problem.

Drawing from narrative therapy ( White, 2007 ), the therapist can help the couple recognize that being LGBT is not the problem; societal bigotry and ignorance are the problems. Externalizing conversations allow the couple to see themselves as separate from the problem. To accomplish this, therapists actively challenge society’s negative attitudes and help them dispute, deconstruct, and subvert these prejudiced views, rather than internalizing or being limited by them. This is what cognitive therapists call disputation of irrational beliefs.

Unpacking the history of minority stress.

To help partners become conscious of their internalized beliefs, therapists ask each partner to create a careful detailed reconstruction of messages they received in their family, neighborhood, school, religious institution, media, and ethnic/cultural community as they were growing up. They then explore each partner’s internalization of gender norms. They may also inventory instances of overt discrimination that each has faced. Through this process, the influence of the dominant culture is named, uncovered, and undermined; clients learn the ways each of them has been damaged by participation in these dominant norms or by the ways these have been thrust upon them. It may be important for the therapist to be ready to counter each condemnation.

Reducing internalized negative beliefs.

A useful step can be to explicitly set a goal to eliminate or reduce self-denigrating, self-limiting beliefs. Therapists are encouraged to include psycho-education, especially presenting research findings, to counter self-limiting beliefs. Debunking the myths that same-sex relationships are dysfunctional and do not last, Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) establish that research documents that many same-sex couples establish enduring relationships that are similar to heterosexuals in their love, satisfaction, and relationship adjustment. Similarly, Goldberg (2009) provides evidence that same-sex couples are competent parents who have psychologically strong children.

In feminist, gay-affirmative, and multicultural therapy approaches, techniques such as these are viewed as teaching subversion and resistance—the conscious and deliberate refusal to merge with dominant norms, and the commitment to attend to one’s own voice and integrity ( Brown, 2010 ).

Establishing positive associations.

Contact with other same-sex or gender-variant couples can provide role models of comfort and relational stability and satisfaction. Interest-based participation in the LGBT community—through religious, athletic, social, artistic, outdoors, political, or service groups—creates opportunities to meet other couples and to create new experiences that challenge negative beliefs.

Considering realistic alternatives. Depending on the kind of discrimination they face, coping successfully may require (1) working for change, (2) changing to a different environment—literally a geographical move or change of job, (3) re-attributing the cause of the distress, and/or (4) reconciling to the fact that some situations cannot be changed and then focusing on other areas of one’s life of sources of hope and fulfillment. Therapists can help couples determine which is most effective for a specific couple and circumstance.

The Establishment of Social Support

For LGBT couples, social support is the recognition and acceptance by others of their LGBT identity and relationship. Several studies have shown the impact of social support on individual well-being, couple satisfaction and commitment, and levels of stress ( Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, & Stirratt, 2009 ; Porche & Purvin, 2008 ; Szymanski, 2009 ).

Support From Family of Origin

While heterosexual couples can typically depend on their biological families for support and recognition of their relationships, same-sex couples often receive less acknowledgment and support from them ( Kurdek, 2005 ) and are likely to derive support primarily from friends ( Waldo, 1999 ). Most parents do not completely reject their lesbian or gay child, but acceptance is highly variable and usually qualified ( Savin-Williams, 2001 ). “Acceptance” in families may more aptly be described as “tolerance” and may include discomfort, family members keeping the child’s LGBT status a secret from their own friends, and family failing to treat the partner as a “real” member of the family ( Green & Mitchell, 2008 ). Szymanski (2009) found that LGB individuals’ strongest experiences of heterosexism were in the context of their families.

Significant numbers of people in same-sex relationships—particularly those from conservative families or immigrant families with traditional values—remain closeted to their families. For the couple, this means either distancing from family of origin in order to stay hidden or foregoing couple commitments in order to stay connected to family, appearing to be a single person.

Families of Choice

Perhaps for these reasons, Weston (1991) found that lesbians and gay men are more psychologically open to broadening the concept of family to include nonbiological relations (which she termed “families of choice”) and to looking there for greater mutual emotional and instrumental support over time, for a sense of social embeddedness and continuity, and for identification ( Mitchell, 2008 ). While well-functioning LGBT couples are able to develop and maintain these families of choice, distressed couples tend to be more isolated and to have smaller and less interconnected sources of support for their couple or their parenting family ( Green & Mitchell, 2008 ).

Support From the LGBT Community

Couples benefit in several ways from connection and identification with an LGBT community: it is a coping resource ( Meyer, 2003 ; Levitt et al., 2009 ); allows decreased concealment of identity; provides access to nonstigmatizing environments; offers opportunities for in-group identification, positive social regard, and positive self-appraisals ( Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, & Stirratt, 2009 ); reminds them they are not alone; and allows them to make more favorable social comparisons ( Frost & Meyer, 2009 ; Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003 ). Having a shared social identity establishes a name for the identity and a community of others who share it ( Garnets & Peplau, 2001 ) and can thus provide a buffer against minority stress (Lewis et al.).

There are many specific subgroups within that vague entity referred to as “the LGBT community.” For example, the wish for community among LGBT parents has given rise to organizations, such as COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere). Internet communities have been especially valuable sources of community for transgender couples ( Lev, 2004 ). Because transgender people number only between 0.25% to 1% of the U.S. population (500,000 to 2 million people; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2009 ), electronic networking across geographical distance helps couples reduce isolation and extend validation and normalizing.

Same-Sex Marriage as Social Support

Not all long-term LGBT couples wish to marry; the LGB community has a long history of support for alternative forms of honoring romantic partnerships (forms that are more egalitarian and flexible than marriage; Yep, Lovaas, & Elia, 2003 ) and has found ways to acquire legal protections for partners ( Lannutti, 2007 ). However, Herek (2006) has suggested that social support is a central component of the marital experience and that the public aspect of marriage increases the couple’s security and the relationship’s longevity. Legal validation (through marriage or civil union) has been shown to relate to couple satisfaction and long-term survival ( Porche & Purvin, 2008 ; Solomon & Balsam, 2004 ; Todosijevic, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2005 ).

Same-sex couples who have married in religious ceremonies indicated they did so to publicly affirm the relationship, to identify with their ethnic traditions, to recognize the religious meanings of the relationships, and to continue their family lines ( Herdt & Kertzner, 2006 ). Oswald and Goldberg (2008) explain: “Commitment ceremonies draw their moral validity from the power of friends and family who witness and affirm the spiritual or cultural traditions to which the same-sex partners link themselves symbolically” (p. 412). Wilkinson and Kitzinger (2006) point out that it is this symbolism of marriage, and not the civil benefits it offers, that is the reason that same-sex couples are prevented from participating in it.

Just as marriage can be a form of social support, exclusion from the right to marry can be experienced as a withdrawal of social support. Herek (2006) has argued that denying same-sex couples the right to marry—even if they receive all other rights and privileges conferred by marriage—conveys a societal judgment that committed intimate relationships with people of the same sex are inferior to heterosexual relationships and are less deserving of society’s recognition. Shulman and colleagues (2009) have shown that this way of understanding marriage prohibition negatively affects same-sex partners, whether they wish to marry or not.

Interventions to Work With Establishment of Social Support

Interventions must always begin with assessment: What does the social support network look like at all levels of its nested contexts? Is it small or large enough, flimsy or robust, structurally rich or structurally meager? Once the couple and therapist have established this information, they can agree on goals.

Building families of choice, differentiating within families of origin.

The therapist needs to do a particular assessment of the couple’s family of choice. Does it exist as a network of enduring relationships that are emotionally and instrumentally useful? Is it cohesive? Is it interconnected, as families are, so that the participants have relationships with one another as well as with the couple? Does it mix friendships with supportive members of the family of origin? Does it support the legitimacy of the couple? Does it also support the couple who are raising children? ( Mitchell, 2008 ).

To create or consolidate a family of choice, the couple must involve themselves in an ongoing manner with their family members. Contacts must be enjoyable, informative, and recurrent. In addition, family must become integrated in a web of interconnections, not like the spokes of a wheel with the couple as the hub. Brainstorming to create group events and traditions—holidays, vacations, shared projects, events, a monthly brunch—and supporting the couple by making contracts with them or treating family-building as “homework” can strengthen a couple’s resolve and perseverance and help them overcome possible social fears ( Green & Mitchell, 2008 ).

For couples whose families of origin include members who are hostile to their relationship, family systems theory and techniques can assist partners in differentiating themselves emotionally, and distancing if necessary. This work includes an examination of the structural dimensions of the family, as well as the unique relationship with each family member. Often, family members differ in their openness, flexibility, and felt bond with the LGBT family member. Couples need to allow themselves, without judgment, to consider alternatives when dealing with the family’s rejection of the partner; some will decide to experiment with strategies for acceptance that involve evolution over time.

It is important to remember that LGBT couples are building family—both by raising children and by establishing families of choice—in ways that are outside societal norms. In a homophobic society, couples (and therapists) may doubt that these families have the tenacity, depth, and longevity of true family life. The therapist can play a key role in legitimating and valuing these families. Therapists need to privilege blood-kin relationships equally with enduring and integrated friendships and to know the research that verifies the competence and success of LGB parents.

Establishing a sense of community.

Couples may need encouragement and assistance in gaining access and involvement in some facet of LGBT community. In many ways, these steps are similar to those of any client who is “new in town”; however, some couples may need to overcome internalized negative stereotypes that lead them to disavow their identification to these communities. Therapists may want to share information to help the couple locate and contact community resources.

Navigating “the marriage question”.

In only 1 year (2003), same-sex couples went from being illegal to having marriage as an option (though perhaps not in their home state). Although marriage is a strong societal value, therapists must exercise caution so they do not bias couples with their own expectations or aspirations, and so there is room for each partner to consider carefully the aspects of marriage that they do and do not want. Couples who choose not to legally validate their relationship may want to explore nonlegal ceremonies or within-couple rituals, or may disavow formalized commitment, for personal and political reasons. It will be important to help these couples claim and legitimate their choice.

Couples that include a transgender partner may or may not qualify as heterosexual for the purpose of legal marriage; however, the linking of marriage to gender endorsement can create painful complexities for these couples as they grapple with potential invisibility or failure of the society to affirm their gender.

Therapists may need to assist couples in claiming their reactions to the highly visible and contentious debates about same-sex marriage. Some couples may want to advocate for themselves through activism or political involvement, however, research cited here has shown that involvement in these battles can also damage couples because it brings them so intensely into contact with extremely emotional adversaries.

Role and Relational Ambiguity

Unlike same-sex and gender-variant couples, heterosexual and sex-traditional couples can use visible models, civil and religious law, cultural expectations, and historical traditions to spell out the structure (including rights and obligations) of their relationship. As a result, they are more secure and stable than same-sex and gender-variant relationships but also more constrained and likely to embody imbalances of power ( Green & Mitchell, 2008 ; Knudson-Martin, 2008 ).

LGBT couples have both the freedom and the need to define their couple boundaries, commitment, and daily and long-range expectations of self and other. Ambiguous boundaries and commitment result, in part, because there is no socially endorsed, legally framed, normative template for what couples should expect from their relationship, and no prevailing way of being a same-sex or gender variant couple. Of course, LGBT people bring many of the same expectations to their couple relationship, partner roles and parenting roles as do heterosexuals, but there is less certainty that both partners’ assumptions are the same. Couples may need therapy as a place to discover and compare their beliefs.

In addition, many same-sex and gender-variant couples do not want to enact a traditionally gendered division of emotional and instrumental responsibilities and power (although some do; Hiestand & Levitt, 2005 ). While many heterosexual men and women value and desire equality within their couple relationship, research has found that even when they hold these values, they have not been able to practice equality in task distribution, emotional work, or decision-making ( Cowan, Cowan, Ablow, Johnson, & Measelle, 2005 ). As a group, LGB people are found to be more fluid in gender role behaviors than their heterosexual counterparts ( Dawood, Bailey, & Martin, 2009 ; Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax, & Bailey, 2008 ).

Some transgender partners may feel committed to a differentiated array of gender choices, while others may seek to enact traditional gender roles. Couples with a transgender member must navigate between areas of androgyny and areas where gender affirmations are an important need ( Ward, 2010 ). A recently transitioned partner will encounter more differently gendered dyadic experiences in a couple than before transition ( Valentine, 2006 ), and if the couple has stayed together during this period, the partner who did not transition also experiences these myriad gendered changes in the couple, as well as the task of considering whether he or she will modify his or her own identification as lesbian/gay/queer/heterosexual, with all the meanings and associations these labels hold ( Mason, 2006 ).

Almost all of the usual expectations that heterosexuals bring to marriage may or may not apply and so may need to be discussed and explicitly agreed to. This applies to monogamy, pooled finances, distribution of couple tasks and household chores, care during illness or incapacity, response to the need for geographical moves, care for one another’s family members, parenting, and inheritance. Typically, couples do not discuss these before moving in together, and disagreements only become apparent when unspoken expectations are suddenly breached ( Green & Mitchell, 2008 ). Couples who cannot legally marry must develop some basic rules and parameters for themselves as a couple. They may draw on heterosexual examples, but the unusual position of these couples in society as well as the same-sex composition of LGB couples and the gender-variant composition of couples with one or both transgender partners may make aspects of these models irrelevant.

Ambiguous Boundaries

Boundaries define the permeability between the couple and others, and establish who is included in and who is excluded from various aspects of a couple’s life. Boundaries are influenced by how a relationship is defined. LGBT couples in therapy frequently lack clarity about how they define their couplehood to themselves and to others.

A greater variety of viable relationship arrangements are acceptable in the LGBT community; for example, some couples do not live together, others do not have a monogamous commitment or have boundaries that allow polyamory ( Bettinger, 2006 ), shorter relationships are normative, and raising children is entirely optional and may intentionally include donors or surrogates who are not members of the parenting couple but are regarded as noncustodial parents and as members of the family. This greater variety leaves open the option that an LGBT couple’s choice of boundaries could be quite different than that of most married couples. Nontraditional couple arrangements may thrust a couple into a longer period of uncertainty and negotiation regarding their personal definition of couplehood.

Ambiguous Commitment

Ambiguous commitment is an experience in which one or both individuals’ intentions or devotion to a relationship are unclear ( Herdt & Kertzner, 2006 ). This occurs partly because the process of couple formation includes no extended courtship or engagement phase and no moment of demarcation (which a ceremony can create). The lack of an articulated and legally binding relationship contract affects commitment; Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, and Solomon (2008) found that couples not in civil unions were much more likely to end their relationship than were those in civil unions.

Under conditions of ambiguous commitment, one or both partners are physically present but psychologically absent in that the extent and exact nature of their psychological commitment to the relationship is unclear. As they did when unearthing and adopting a set of positions about boundaries, partners must ask themselves and articulate for their partners their view of the nature of their relationship. Having discovered (or reached) consensus, they must also become able to legitimate their commitment, at least to themselves and perhaps also to important others.

A widely held stereotype is that bisexuals are reluctant to commit to a monogamous relationship. In practice, bisexuals make long-term monogamous commitments ( Rust, 2000 ); for them, the bisexual label is meaningful as an accurate reflection of their history and/or the recognition that, should their current relationship end, they would be open to a new partner of either sex. However, therapists and partners of bisexuals may hold this stereotype; if so, making it conscious and disputing it will be an important part of the work with these couples.

Marriage as an ambiguous option.

The rapidly changing situation regarding same-sex marriage adds to a sense of ambiguity. The stability and generalizability of marriage rights for LGB people are uncertain and are sometimes allowed and then revoked (as in California), creating ambiguity both within and outside the couple. Legal meanings of domestic partnerships and civil unions have changed, so that couples who signed on for limited rights may find themselves with larger legally binding agreements, and with great difficulty rescinding their status. Couples may marry in some states or countries, but their legal marriage obligations are not honored in adjoining states or nations (e.g., Canada and the United States). As of August 2013, 13 states have legalized same sex marriage, six states have statutes that prohibit same-sex marriages, and 29 have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and woman, so courts are unable to consider the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in those states.

Most same-sex couples have no legal status available. This leaves them especially vulnerable in relation to their children or during times of serious illness, incapacity, or death of a partner—times when legal protections are most needed, practically and psychologically ( Herdt & Kertzner, 2006 ; Herek, 2006 ).

Ambiguous commitment and ambiguous termination.

Terminations of LGBT couple relationships are sometimes characterized by ambiguous loss because there are no formal divorce proceedings that demarcate the ending. This may lead to boundary ambiguity, where the presence or extent of a continuing commitment may be unclear. Ongoing connection with an ex-partner may interfere with a new relationship or with a new partner’s sense of primacy over the former partner.

Division of Tasks, Power, and Roles

Same-sex couples cannot rely on the usual gender-linked division of tasks in areas such as financial decision-making, relationship maintenance, talking about feelings and problems, earning money, doing housework, preparing meals, taking the lead in sex, arranging their social life, or taking care of children and elderly relatives. Most same-sex couples want equality of power and the sharing of the tasks that have historically been associated with the masculine or feminine role ( Carrington, 1999 ). To achieve this requires gender flexibility from partners and is a conscious, deliberate process, just as it is for heterosexual couples that seek to actualize equality. In both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, the relationship reflects greater equality if neither partner is attached to traditional gender roles ( Knudson-Martin, 2008 ), but departure from roles also increases the ambiguity about who is to do what ( Mitchell, 1996 ). There may be a long period of “trial and error.”

Challenges of traditional roles.

To the extent that partners were socialized into and still adhere to traditional gendered behavior for their sex, they may develop conflicts or deficiencies in the relationship. These problems ensue when both partners enact the same gender role. Potential problems associated with gender traditionality in same-sex couples are when (a) both women try to please the other too much and neglect to communicate their own needs or when neither man will sacrifice his needs (as when one needs to relocate for the other’s job offer), (b) both men want to be the leader in sex or neither woman feels comfortable initiating sex, (c) neither man is able to depend on or nurture the other in times of distress, (d) the woman who earns more than her partner feels guilty and disempowers herself in other areas or one man’s career success leaves the other feeling inadequate. These problems arise not because it is a same-sex relationship, but because some pairs adhere to traditional roles that create gender-related deficits ( Wade & Donis, 2007 ).

Some transgender partners may want to affirm their chosen gender by being able to stand in stark contrast to their partner’s gender role and for this reason may want the partner to cultivate a more traditional role ( Ward, 2010 ). Each partner’s needs and values must be considered in this negotiation, and the outcome may involve compromise and carefully chosen domains of complementarity and equality. For example, sexual behavior may be more complementary, while household tasks are more shared.

Role and relational ambiguity in parenting.

Same-sex couples are having children, often involving adoption (by both parents or by the nonbiological parent), sperm or egg donation, and surrogacy ( Mitchell & Green, 2007 ). Mitchell (1996) considers the increased planning necessary to become same-sex parents helpful in that it provides time and impetus for clarifying parenting roles and ideals. When a child has two parents of the same sex, labeling one of them a “father” and the other a “mother” is meaningless; however, the valuable functions and attributes of a good father and a good mother remain as aspects of the parenting tasks whether performed by a man or a woman. Before deciding to become parents, partners in these families will find it important to discover their assumptions about who does what as parents, since both must sort out the gendered mandates they have learned about “mothering” and “fathering.”

As they take steps to become parents, LGBT couples must decide whether and when to disclose that they are a same-sex or transgender couple, accommodating the perceived (lack of) openness of agencies and institutions (particularly for adoption, but also for surrogacy or sperm donation; Bergstrom-Lynch, 2012 ). As their child matures, they continue to decide about disclosure to physicians, teachers, other parents, and friends of their children. These decisions may be clouded by an awareness that, until recently, coming out almost invariably meant losing one’s children ( Rivers, 2010 ). Partners may vary in the extent of their fear, their appraisal of relative safety, and their personal preferences in each situation. As they get older, children will also want to weigh in with their preferences.

In some regions, a lack of legal guidelines for parental custody may add to relational ambiguity; on the other hand, having children often reduces relational ambiguity because it requires legal agreements and creates an implicit set of mutual obligations and responsibilities and an expectation to stay together. Children also increase the amount of social support the couple receives, especially from family members.

Techniques to Address Relational and Role Ambiguity

Because the sociocultural situation makes these couples vulnerable to relational ambiguity, it is important to clarify the boundary, commitment, and role dimensions of relationship regardless of the couple’s presenting problems. The primary intervention to accomplish this is to ask the following questions and help the couple to arrive at clear answers. These questions are: What does it mean to you that you are a couple, how do you define being a “couple”? What has been your history as a couple? How did becoming a couple affect your relationships with family friends, the LGBT community, and the straight community? What are the rules in your relationship regarding monogamy versus sex outside the relationship? What are your rules about safer sex with each other and/or with others? What are your agreements with each other about monthly finances, debts, pooling versus separate financial resources, and ownership of joint property? Who does what in the household, and how is this decided? Are you satisfied with the current division or sharing of these tasks? Do you hope to parent together? If so, how do you see yourselves distributing the parenting tasks? What are your obligations about caring for each other in illness, injury, or disability? Is this a lifetime commitment? If so, have you prepared legal documents to protect each other in case of serious illness or death? ( Clifford, Hertz, & Doskow, 2007 , is an excellent resource for legal protections.) There are no formulaic solutions, and resolution need not look like heterosexual marriage, but couples function best when they have clear agreements about commitment and boundaries, and when the couple relationship is given higher priority than any other relationship in terms of emotional involvement, caregiving, honesty, time, and influence over major decisions.

Clarifying the extent and nature of emotional commitments to each other is central to the work. Sometimes this involves resolving conflicts of allegiance between the couple and other family members, friends, or former partners. Sometimes, it involves spelling out what promises and reassurances each is willing to give that might increase both partners’ sense of security, durability, and potential longevity of the relationship. Inhibitions about obtaining legal couple status (if it is available) should be explored. Couples can also explore whether to have a commitment ceremony and/or formal exchange of vows, which, if wanted, provides a demarcation point and an opportunity to present clear commitments and to experience social support for the couple as a visible and legitimate romantic relationship.

If ambiguity exists about monogamy, this should be spelled out, based on full exploration of the emotions and motivations of the partners. While nonmonogamy is rare among women, it has been common among gay male couples ( Bettinger, 2006 ), although less so in recent years. In these couples, problems arise not from the outside relationship but from ambiguity about the agreement that can lead to secrecy or inconsistent adherence, leading to feelings of insecurity about the primary commitment ( Solomon & Balsom, 2004 ). If a couple chooses a nonmonogamous relationship, specific and detailed behavioral rules should be agreed on beforehand as to who, what, when, where, how often, with how much communication about each encounter, and with what limitations ( Shernoff, 2006 ).

If gender conformity is creating problems, clients are invited to review their gender role socialization experiences. As this takes place, the therapist can challenge limitations associated with current gendered behavior (much as one might do with heterosexual partners). If there is ambiguity or dissension about who does what, the couple can set a goal to discuss this area of daily life to clarify the tasks and see that they are distributed equitably, challenging any polarization of roles or dominance-submission patterns that might be destructive to the relationship over the long run.

Parenting partners will also want to talk through their ideas about who does what as a parent. As children grow up, parenting changes, so these conversations should take place intermittently and become a part of the couple’s ongoing experience. Similarly, needs for and concerns about disclosure will change as the child grows up, and children will have their own changing preferences and needs about disclosure of their family structure ( Mitchell, 2012 ).

Homework assignments or in-session exercises negotiating expectations and agreements may be useful. Homework should be constructed to address specific issues and come up with specific behavioral agreements for the future. Any interventions that help clarify expectations in contested areas or areas that have never been discussed reduce relational ambiguity, which in turn increases feelings of secure attachment and belief in the permanence of the union, anchoring the relationship in tangible definitions of what it means that they are a couple.

From Sociocultural Problem to Intrapsychic and Relational Consequences: A Framework for Psychological Understanding and Intervention

To date, no published quantitative studies have established the effectiveness of a particular approach to therapy with same-sex or gender-variant couples, although there are articles and books about how to work with this population ( Bepko & Johnson, 2000 ; Bigner & Wechsler, 2012 ; Green & Mitchell, 2008 ; Mitchell, 1988 ; Perez, De Bord, & Bieschke, 2000 ), as well as illustrative case studies. However, the evidence has strongly supported the centrality of the therapeutic relationship in all effective therapy ( Norcross & Lambert, 2011 ); therefore, the framework introduced here will emphasize qualities of this relationship.

With issues that are distinctive to LGBT couples, it is useful to have a conceptual frame to organize and deepen understanding of psychological issues that may underlie concrete complaints and to provide direction for interventions. I have found the basic framework and tenets of self-psychology to provide a valuable perspective for these tasks ( Mitchell, 2010 ). It draws from contemporary psychodynamic theory, is consistent with multicultural, feminist, and gay-affirmative therapies, and is compatible with cognitive-behavioral, narrative, and systemic techniques ( Brems, 1991 ).

Fundamental Tenets of Self-psychology

Self psychology posits that humans live in relationship like fish live in water—the relational milieu is our psychological environment all our lives. Relationships build and sustain our psychological selves by performing three central functions: mirroring, idealizing, and twinship ( Kahn, 1985 ). In childhood, we gradually internalize the capacity to perform these functions, but we are never entirely psychologically self-reliant. Extending this theory, couple relationships are most satisfying when they are able to consistently provide these three central functions. Therapy, too, is most effective when it can include these functions within the relational environment of the interventions. While distressed couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression, have similar needs, often present similar kinds of problems, and can be helped with similar therapies, it is particularly with LGBT clients that the three functions are at the core of therapeutic work.

The three functions.

Self psychology theory describes the role of the three key functions—mirroring, idealizing, and twinship—in the psychological development of the child and in the maintenance of psychological health throughout life.

The mirroring function begins as the capacity for delight—the “gleam in the mother’s eye”—that expresses basic joy in her child’s very existence. It is called mirroring because the child can see the delight reflected back at him/her. Over time, the child’s significant others express pride and delight in his/her accomplishments (first words, scribbled drawings) and later are proud of the child’s achievements. Internalizing this function provides the self with a sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Pride in accomplishments evolves into a capacity to identify and invest in his/her personal ambitions and goals and in achievements that result from pursuing them.

Self-psychology speculates that if a child can depend on his/her caregivers, the child will also idealize the caregivers’ “wonderfulness”—their ability to do so many things that the infant cannot, to hold a much larger perspective than the young child, and as a result of these to provide a comforting and soothing presence; this is the idealizing function. As the child grows up, adults become more “ordinary” and their abilities come within reach of the young person. During this time, she/he internalizes the idealizing function and becomes increasingly able to take perspective, to comfort and soothe him/herself, and to regulate affect.

The twinship function is the experience of being like others, a part of the human community. Caregivers provide this by their expectation of commonalities: we teach our children to talk like us, to eat like us, to do the things we do. The growing self of the child develops his/her talents and develops life skills in the context of relationship with others like him/herself.

Self-psychology posits that these three functions form the central structure of the dynamic self. In a well-functioning self, we are invested in our ambitions and drawn toward our ideals. We integrate them by using our talents and skills in a program of action. Manifesting these, we experience the self as vital, harmonious, and coherent ( Kohut & Wolf, 1978 ).

Heterosexual people are privileged by a society that makes these functions readily available to them. Our society abounds with mirroring bestowed on heterosexual ambitions; heterosexual models and mentors are widely visible in the culture at large; and the experience of heterosexual twinship is offered in many popular stories, rituals, and songs. That these experiences have (until very recently) been entirely outside the reach of LGBT people is the embodiment of lived oppression and marginality.

Applying a Self-psychology Framework to LGBT Couples

The mirroring function in therapy with lgbt couples..

Gay affirmative psychotherapy is synonymous with the mirroring function. It takes as its premise that LGBT people represent normal human variation and are fundamentally acceptable, accepted, welcome, and valued. It is for this reason that therapy becomes a safe context in which to explore one’s painful history and internalized negative beliefs. Just as the gleam in the mother’s eye reflects her pleasure at her child’s very existence, the therapist working with the LGBT couple takes as an interpersonal foundation the capacity to be pleased that the LGBT couple exists. For the couple with a transgender member, mirroring similarly begins with the assumption that that they have found, or will find, the expression of gender that fits for them, and both gender exploration and the outcome are fully accepted and welcomed by the therapist.

The therapist’s sense of delight in the couple experience—positive expectation, pleasure in witnessing the development of a relationship and a family of choice, recognition of, and pride in, the couple’s accomplishments—are ways that the therapist–client relationship works to resist internalized self-doubts and negative beliefs. Just as the mirroring function becomes internalized as self-esteem and the capacity to invest in one’s own individual goals and ambitions, it functions to infuse the couple with vitality, value and the capacity to invest in their relational ambitions and goals.

Exploring minority stress and relational ambiguity, while essential, can be difficult, painful, or frightening. This is delicate work. Unpacking these beliefs, their roots, and their potential impact requires the capacity to tolerate unwanted aspects of oneself that are embarrassing or shameful and to face fears of disapproving judgment or even rejection. The atmosphere of acceptance and affirmation created by the mirroring function provides a buffer of positive regard that can facilitate each LGBT partner’s depthful self-exploration and empathy. Mirroring also includes acknowledging that partners can feel proud as they accomplish this work.

The idealizing function in therapy with LGBT couples.

The idealizing function provides calmness, soothing, and a sense of ease through closeness to capabilities that the child recognizes first in a capable adult caregiver. Chief among these is the capacity to “see the big picture,” to take perspective. Other adult capacities that the child admires are the adult’s ability to access resources and use them to care for self and important others. In work with LGBT couples, these strengths emerge in the therapist’s ability to direct the couple to “the big picture” of sociocultural influences on their experience of gender expression and same-sex love, to take a long historical view of how they came to the attitudes and beliefs they now use to define their couple options, and to provide informational resources. Helping couples attain a vivid understanding of institutionalized oppression and the power of socialization allows them to become able to “see the big picture” and thus perform these idealizing functions for themselves and each other. Knowing that they are not alone and need not feel isolated when difficulties arise is itself a comfort.

In developmental theory, internalization of the idealizing function leads to the development of values and ideals. In therapy, the long historical view and the focus on large social forces lays the foundation for the couple’s capacity to discover and articulate their couple values and ideals.

The twinship function in therapy with LGBT couples.

Twinship is the experience of being fundamentally like someone else. This function emerges in childhood when the parent teaches the learning child things they will then share—a “common language” and a set of skills and practices they have in common. In adulthood, twinship is about being a human among humans, a member of the community. In therapy, the twinship function is expressed in the experience of shared humanity as the therapist becomes an understanding witness to pain and fear and to the vitality and exuberance of claiming the couple relationship with an authentic voice.

The inability to marry is, at its most fundamental psychological level, an assault on the twinship function. The loss of legal rights that protect marital relationships is an enormous rejection and delegitimization of the couple. Where the twinship function emphasizes likeness and membership in a shared community, rejection by homophobic institutions (and individuals) enforces the opposite message. Levitt et al. (2009) found that LGBT people, in states where they were actively barred from the right to marry, felt perceived as “less than human” by the community and/or government.

LGBT couples are particularly vulnerable to twinship damage. Being LGBT renders LGBT children different from parents and siblings (unlike other marginalized people who share their minority status with their family members) and from friends and neighbors. Even today, being LGBT is enough to be barred from some religions, occupations, and groups and is defined as criminal in many nations. Twinship needs have been met reliably for LGBT couples only by creating and maintaining a “family of choice,” a set of interconnected ongoing relationships chosen for their capacity to manifest the self-psychological functions ( Mitchell, 2008 ).

When LGBT clients ask about their therapist’s sexual orientation, they are addressing the need for sufficient twinship to permit a therapeutic alliance. The subtext of this question, and the point of the answer to it, must recognize that LGBT people have learned to doubt whether someone unlike themselves in sexual orientation or gender expression can grant them full humanity. This does not mean that only LGBT therapists can work effectively with LGBT clients. It does mean that all therapists who work with these clients must ask themselves whether they feel a genuine, deep, and pervasive commonality with the LGBT couple—not a politically correct advocacy or exaggerated and repetitive recitation of “acceptance” but rather a true sense of twinship. If they do not, they should decline to see LGBT couples.

Strengthening and consolidating the twinship function is a central reason to assist clients in building a family of choice and finding an authentic way to manifest their talents and skills within some aspect of the LGBT community. This allows people to stand up in solidarity with others for their right to exist (a subversion of the heteronormative status quo) and to meet others who are like themselves in this important way and who model self-esteem and empowerment (legitimization of the LGBT self).

Seven Premises About Work With Same-Sex and Gender-Variant Couples

In addition to having a psychologically based conceptual framework for LGBT couples work, effective interventions require that clinicians operate within the following seven foundational premises:

LGBT couples constitute a very diverse population and the risk of stereotyping is great when making broad generalizations about them. Lesbians and gay men have in common only that they have chosen a same-sex partner. Similarly, gender-variant people share only this aspect of their experience.

Like heterosexual and gender-traditional couples, most same-sex and gender-variant couples function well, and do not need or seek help. LGBT couples are vulnerable to all the same problems, crises, and erosion that may create dysfunction in couples of any type. A new approach or theory of therapy is not needed.

LGBT couples are as tremendously diverse in their intersecting identities ( Cole, 2009 ) as are heterosexual and gender-traditional couples. Rather than being a unitary cultural group, LGBT people have as much sociodemographic diversity as heterosexual and gender-traditional couples. An LGBT couple’s ethnic ( Mousa, 2011 ), class, and religious ( Harrell, 2012 ) identities affect their experience of being a couple and the options for change that are, or are not, available to them ( Cole, 2009 ).

Because of rapid societal change, the age and cohort of an LGBT couple create profound and pervasive differences in their experience, beliefs, and expectations ( Institute for Gay Lesbian Strategic Studies, 2005 ), which must be considered in creating interventions. While changes move the society in the direction of inclusion, they may also bring confusion and distress for same-sex and gender-variant couples who face new decisions and challenges and have long-held and more oppressive frames of reference.

LGBT couples increasingly expect to enjoy access to everything from high school proms to retirement communities ( Cahill & South, 2002 ). Most seek to live “out of the closet” ( Seldman, 2002 ), to marry and become parents in families that are visible and welcomed ( Savin-Williams, 2001 ). A “gay generation gap” ( Institute for Gay Lesbian Strategic Studies, 2005 ) separates a generation that feared the consequences of visibility and lived “in the closet” or “stealth” from a generation of activists and a current young generation that expects inclusion. One component of this gap is young people’s lack of experience with stigma and hiding that was typical in previous generations, and that may have shaped the expectations of both family members and couple therapists.

Bisexual and gender-variant people have become more visible and, consistent with their visibility, younger couples are likely to view sexuality and gender expression on fluid continua rather than as dichotomies ( Bockting, 2008 ; Yerke & Mitchell, 2011 ), which has important consequences for their relationships.

A first task in LGBT couple work is to assess whether, and to what extent, a couples’ reasons for seeking help have to do with being LGBT. Many couples have problems that are identical to those of heterosexual clients: conflict negotiation, finances, communication, sex, infidelity, and attachment. Others enter therapy to deal with LGBT issues or a blend of both. Therapists face the danger of either ignoring or exaggerating the importance of LGBT factors in the etiology of a problem and must carefully and continually assess and modify the therapy accordingly ( Green & Mitchell, 2008 ).

Therapists (especially heterosexual and gender-traditional ones) can prepare themselves personally and professionally for this kind of work. A welcome change is the abundance of intelligent, scholarly research and clinical writing about lesbians and gay men (and, to a lesser, but still significant, extent about bisexual and transgender people). No therapist has reason to be ignorant about how to work with these distressed couples.

Regardless of their therapeutic orientation, all therapists should be able to provide psychoeducational information that counters stereotypes and a list of LGBT community resources and how to access them.

It is essential that the therapist honestly explores his/her values about gender roles, gender expression, and the ways that couple and parenting relationships work (and “should” work). None of us are without values concerning gender or couples or parenting, but to work responsibly as therapists we must become aware of where we stand and how our stand may impact our clients. Historically, these value concerns have arisen for therapists who cannot endorse the deliberate absence of a father in lesbian two-mom families or the absence of a mother in gay two-dad families, for therapists who are unable to view gender on a continuum as many intersex and transgender people now do, and for therapists who do not feel that sexual orientation can be healthy as well as fluid.

While they have been addressed individually, the three unique challenges for LGBT couples do not operate independently, and together they affect the health of the individual and the couple. Common psychiatric problems, such as depression or anxiety, may turn out to be strongly linked to condemnation in the family or at work, lack of social support, ambiguity in a partner’s commitment, or a combination of these. The psychological functions needed for couple (and individual) health also combine; couples function best when all three psychological functions are working well.

Underlying the particular interventions used, effective psychotherapy involves examining attitudes and beliefs in a context of safe acceptance (mirroring) with access to sociocultural analysis and a long perspective (idealizing) and in relation to another who can understand and empathically bear witness (twinship). To succeed with LGBT clients, the therapist functions as a celebrant of constructive relationship, a historian and critical analyst of gender norms and social bigotry, a fellow member of the human community who recognizes fundamental shared relational needs as well as human variation, and as a skilled clinician with a body of knowledge and skills to address couple dysfunction.

There are, however, a small number of reports on heterosexual couples in which one partner begins to identify as transgender and enter transition. However, those articles are not germane to this chapter because in those couples, the emergence of the transgender identity is the presenting problem, whereas in this chapter, the transgender status of one or both partners is a given and is not a problem.

Balsam, K. F. , Beauchaine, T. P. , Rothblum, E. D. , & Solomon, S. E. ( 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.

Google Scholar

Balsam, K. , & Szymanski, D. ( 2005 ). Relationship quality and domestic violence in women’s same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 29 , 258–269.

Bepko, C. , & Johnson, T. ( 2000 ). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Perspectives for the contemporary family therapist. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy , 26 (4), 409–419.

Bergstrom-Lynch, C. ( 2012 ). How children rearrange the closet: Disclosure practices of gay, lesbian, and bisexual prospective parents. Journal of LGBT Family Studies , 8 , 173–195.

Bettinger, M. ( 2006 ). Polyamory and gay men: A family systems approach. In J. Bigner (Ed.), An introduction to LGBT family studies (pp. 161–181). New York, NY: Haworth Press.

Google Preview

Bigner, J. , & Wetchler, J. (Eds.) ( 2012 ). Handbook of LGBT-affirmative couple and family therapy . New York, NY: Routledge.

Bockting, W. ( 2008 ). Psychotherapy and the real-life experience: From gender dichotomy to gender diversity. Sexologies , 17 , 211–224.

Brems, C. ( 1991 ). Self psychology and feminism: An integration and expansion. American Journal of Psychoanalysis , 51 , 145–160.

Brooks, V. ( 1981 ). Minority stress and lesbian women . Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Brown, L. ( 2010 ). Feminist therapy . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown, M. L. , & Rounsley, C. A. ( 1996 ). True selves: Understanding transsexualism—for families, friends, coworkers, and helping professionals . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cahill, S. , & South, K. ( 2002 ). Policy issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in retirement. Generations , 26 (2), 49–54.

Carrington, C. ( 1999 ). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay men . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cayleff, S. ( 2010 ). Feeding the hand that bit you: Lesbian daughters at mid-life negotiating parental caretaking. In V. Mitchell (Ed.). Lesbian family life, like the fingers of a hand: Under-discussed and controversial topics (pp. 115–132). New York, NY: Routledge.

Clements-Nolle, K. , Marx, R. , & Katz, M. ( 2006 ). Attempted suicide among transgender persons: The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality , 51 (3), 53–69.

Clifford, D. , Hertz, F. , & Doskow, E. ( 2007 ). A legal guide for lesbian and gay couples . (14th ed.). Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press.

Cole, E. ( 2009 ). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist , 64 (3), 170–180.

Connelly, C. ( 2006 ). A process of change: The intersection of the LGBT individual and his or her family of origin. In J. Bigner (Ed.), An introduction to LGBT family studies . (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: Haworth Press.

Cowan, P. , Cowan, C. , Ablow, J. , Johnson, V. , & Measelle, J. (Eds.) ( 2005 ). The family context of parenting in children’s adaptation to elementary school . New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

D’Augelli, A. , Rendina, H. , Grossman, A. , & Sinclair, K. ( 2007 ). Lesbian and gay youths’ aspirations for marriage and raising children. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling , 1 , 77–98.

Dawood, K. , Bailey, J.M. , & Martin, N.G. ( 2009 ). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation. In Y.-K. Kim (Ed.), Handbook of behavior genetics (pp. 269–279). New York, NY: Springer.

diPlacido, J. ( 1998 ). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation (pp. 138–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frost, D. M. , & Meyer, I. H. ( 2009 ). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 56 , 97–109.

Garnets, L. , & Peplau, L. ( 2001 ). A new paradigm for women’s sexual orientation: Implications for therapy. Women & Therapy , 24 (1–2), 111–121. doi:10.1300/J015v24n01_14

Goldberg, A. ( 2009 ). Gay and lesbian parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gottman, J. M. , Levenson, R. W. , Gross, J. , Frederickson, B. L. , McCoy, K. , Rosenthal, L. , … Yoshimoto, D. ( 2003 ). Correlates of gay and lesbian couples’ relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality , 45 , 23–43.

Green, R. J. , & Mitchell, V. ( 2008 ). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Homophobia, relational ambiguity, and social support. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4th ed., pp. 662–680). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Harrell, E. ( 2012 ). The role of reformed Judaism in lesbian identity development . San Francisco, CA: California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant University.

Hequembourg, A. L. , & Brallier, S. A. ( 2009 ). An exploration of sexual minority stress across the lines of gender and sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality , 56 , 273–298.

Herdt, G. , & Kertzner, R. ( 2006 ). I do, but I can’t: The impact of marriage denial on the mental health and sexual citizenship of lesbians and gay men in the United States. Sexuality Research & Social Policy , 3 , 33–49.

Herek, G. ( 1998 ). Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herek, G. ( 2006 ). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States. American Psychologist , 61 , 607–621.

Hiestand, K. R. , & Levitt, H. M. ( 2005 ). Gender within lesbian sexuality: Butch and femme perspectives. Journal of Constructivist Psychology , 18 (1), 39–51. doi:10.1080/10720530590523062

Hunter, S. ( 2005 ). Midlife and older LGBT adults: Knowledge and affirmative practice for the social services . New York, NY: Haworth Press.

Institute for Gay Lesbian Strategic Studies. (2005). New report outlines ways the LGBT community can overcome the “gay generation gap.” Retrieved from www.theinterface.org/media/pdf/communitygap.pdf

Israel, G. E. , & Tarver, D. E. ( 1997 ). Transgender care: Recommended guidelines , practical information , and personal accounts . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Johnston, L. , & Jenkins, D. ( 2004 ). Coming out in mid-adulthood: Building a new identity. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services , 16 (2), 19–42.

Kahn, E. ( 1985 ). Heinz Kohut and Carl Rogers: A timely comparison. American Psychologist , 40 , 893–904.

Kertzner, R. M. , Meyer, I. M. , Frost, D. M. , & Stirratt, M. J. ( 2009 ). Social and psychological well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 79 , 500–510.

Knudson-Martin, C. ( 2008 ). Gender issues in the practice of couple therapy. In A. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kohut, H. , & Wolf , ( 1978 ). The disorders of the self and their treatment. International Journal of Psychoanalysis , 59 , 413–425.

Kurdek, L. A. ( 2005 ). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science , 14 , 251–254.

Lannutti, P. ( 2007 ). The influence of same-sex marriage on the understanding of same- sex relationships. Journal of Homosexuality , 53 , 135–151.

Lehmiller, J. J. , & Agnew, C. R. ( 2006 ). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 32 , 40–51.

Lev, A. I. ( 2004 ). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families . Binghamton, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.

Levitt, H. , Ovrebo, E. , Anderson-Cleveland, M. , Leone, C. , Jeong, J. , Arm, J. , Bonin, B. , et al. ( 2009 ). Balancing dangers: GLBT experience in a time of anti-GLBT legislation. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 56 , 67–81.

Lewis, R. J. , Derlega, V. J. , Griffin, J. L. , & Krowinski, A. C. ( 2003 ). Stressors for gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 22 , 716–729.

Mason, M. (2006). The experience of transition for lesbian partners of female to male transsexuals: A phenomenological dissertation . San Francisco, CA: California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant University.

Meyer, I. H. ( 2003 ). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin , 129 , 674–697.

Meyer, I. H. , & Dean, L. ( 1998 ). Internalized homophobia, intimacy, and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men. In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, V. ( 2012 ). Coming out to family: Adrift in a sea of potential meanings. In J. Bigner & J. Wetchler (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT-affirmative couple and family therapy (pp. 131–148). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mitchell, V. ( 2010 ). Developing the therapeutic self: Supervising therapists with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clients in the 21st century. Women and Therapy , 33 , 7–21.

Mitchell, V. ( 2008 ). Choosing family: Meaning and membership in the lesbian family of choice. Journal of Lesbian Studies , 12 , 301–313.

Mitchell, V. ( 1996 ). Two moms: The contribution of the planned lesbian family to the deconstruction of gendered parenting. In J. Laird & R. J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists (pp. 343–357). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, V. ( 1988 ). Using Kohut’s self psychology in work with lesbian couples. Women and Therapy , 8 , 157–166.

Mitchell, V. , & Green, R.-J. ( 2007 ). Different storks for different folks: Lesbian and gay parents’ experiences with alternative insemination and surrogacy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies , 3 , 81–104.

Mohr, J. J. , & Fassinger, R. E. ( 2006 ). Sexual orientation and romantic relationship quality in same-sex couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 32 , 1085–1099.

Mousa, K. ( 2011 ). Sexual and ethnic identity development among Arab American lesbians . Berkeley, CA: The Wright Institute.

National Center for Transgender Equality. (2009). Teaching transgender . http://transequality.org/Resources/NCTE_Teaching_Transgende.pdf

Norcross, J. , & Lambert, M. ( 2011 ). Psychotherapy relationships that work II. Psychotherapy , 48 (1), 4–8.

Oswald, R. F. , & Goldberg, A. ( 2008 ). Structural and moral commitment among same-sex couples: Relationship duration, religiosity, and parental status. Journal of Family Psychology , 22 , 411–419.

Otis, M. D. , Rostosky, S. S. , Riggle, E. D. , & Hamrin, R. ( 2006 ). Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 23 , 81–99.

Pearlman, S. ( 2006 ). Terms of connection: Mother-talk about female-to-male transgender children. In J. Bigner & A. Gottlieb (Eds.), Interventions with families of gay , lesbian , bisexual and transgender people: From the inside out (pp. 93–122). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Peplau, L. A. , & Fingerhut, A. W. ( 2007 ). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. The Annual Review of Psychology , 58 , 405–424.

Perez, R. M. , De Bord, K. A. , & Bieschke, K. J. (Eds.) ( 2000 ). Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pfeffer, C. A. ( 2010 ). “Women’s work?” Women partners of transgender men doing housework and emotion work. Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 (1), 165–183.

Porche, M. V. , & Purvin, D. M. ( 2008 ). “Never in our lifetime”: Legal marriage for same- sex couples in long-term relationships. Family Relations , 57 , 144–159.

Rieger, G. , Linsenmeier, J. A. W. , Gygax, L. , & Bailey, J. M. ( 2008 ). Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology , 44 (1), 46–58.

Riggle, E. D. , Rostosky, S. S. , & Horne, S. G. ( 2010 ). Psychological distress, well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology , 24 , 82–86.

Rivers, D. ( 2010 ). In the best interests of the child: Lesbian and gay parenting custody cases, 1967–1985. Journal of Social History , 43 , 917–943.

Rust, P. ( 2000 ). Review of statistical findings about bisexual behavior, feelings, and Identities. In P. Rust (Ed.), Bisexuality in the United States (pp. 129–184). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Savin-Williams, R. ( 2001 ). Mom, Dad, I’m gay: How families negotiate coming out . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Seldman, S. ( 2002 ). Beyond the closet: The transformation of gay and lesbian life . New York, NY: Routledge.

Shernoff, M. ( 2006 ). Negotiated non-monogamy and male couples. Family Process , 45 , 407–418.

Shulman, J. L. , Weck, V. , Schwing, S. , Smith, T. , & Coale, E. ( 2009 ). The push-pull of policy pressure: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of same-sex marriage policies among non-metropolitan glb individuals. Journal of LGBT Family Studies , 5 , 340–365.

Solomon, S. , & Balsam, K. ( 2004 ). Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology , 18 , 275–286.

Szymanski, D. M. ( 2009 ). Examining potential moderators of the link between heterosexist events and gay and bisexual men’s psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 1 , 142–151.

Todosijevic, J. Rothblum, E. D. , & Solomon, S. E. ( 2005 ). Relationship satisfaction, affectivity, and gay-specific stressors in same-sex couples joined in civil unions. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 29 , 158–166.

Valentine, D. ( 2006 ). “I went to bed with my own kind once”: The erasure of desire in the name of identity. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 407–419). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wade, J. , & Donis, C. ( 2007 ). Masculinity ideology, male identity, and romantic relationship quality among heterosexual and gay men. Sex Roles , 57 , 775–786.

Waldo, C. R. ( 1999 ). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 46 , 218–232.

Ward, J. ( 2010 ). Gender labor: Transmen, femmes, and collective work of transgression. Sexualities , 13 (2), 236–254. doi:10.1177/1363460709359114

Weiss, J. ( 2011 ). Reflective paper: GL versus BT: The archaeology of biphobia and transphobia within the U.S. gay and lesbian community. Journal of Bisexuality , 11 (4), 498–502.

Weston, K. ( 1991 ). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays kinship . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

White, M. ( 2007 ). Maps of narrative practice . New York, NY: Norton

Wight, R. G. , LeBlanc, A. J. , de Vries, B. , & Detels, R. ( 2012 ). Stress and mental health among midlife and older gay-identified men. American Journal of Public Health , 102 (3), 503–510.

Wilkinson, S. , & Kitzinger, C. ( 2006 ). In support of equal marriage: Why civil Partnership is not enough. Psychology of Women Section Review , 8 (1), 54–57.

Yep, G. A. , Lovaas, K. E. , & Elia, J. P. ( 2003 ). A critical appraisal of assimilationist and radical ideologies underlying same-sex marriage in LGBT communities in the United States. Journal of Homosexuality , 50 , 45–64.

Yerke, A. F. , & Mitchell, V. ( 2011 ). Am I man enough yet? A comparison of the body transition, self-labeling, and sexual orientation of two cohorts of female-to-male transsexuals. International Journal of Transgenderism , 13 , 64–76.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness Research Paper

Introduction, demographics, personal awareness of the population before studying the demographics, effect of research on personal attitudes, perceptions before and after.

All people have biases; self-awareness is the key to understanding how these biases affect the delivery of health care to individuals, families, and populations. Several jurisdictions in the United States have legalized same-sex marriages. On the 13th of August, 2013, 13 states had legalized same-sex marriages. However, gay couples in society attempting to adopt children have experienced a lot of barriers. Resistance to adoption originates from the cultural, religious, political, and economic inclinations of various people (Pew Research Center, 2013). This essay discusses barriers experienced by gay couples while seeking adoption.

According to the 2012 census, same-sex marriages are more than 71,165. The state of Massachusetts, which legalized it earlier than other states, had 22,406 by 2012, whereas New York had 12,285 in the same year. Connecticut had 5759 same-sex marriages by 2011 while Washington had 2,500 marriages. In the same year, 428 cases were recorded in Maine State. The state of California recorded 18,000 cases of same-sex marriages (Pew Research Center, 2013).

Before this study, little was known about gay couples. The idea of same-sex marriages has developed in America to a legal platform. America is a society that is founded on personal liberty and freedom. However, the community’s perception of this issue was suppressed by cultural and religious beliefs. During the adoption process, gay couples encounter a lot of barriers. Though most states have legalized gay marriages, some states are opposed to it. This explains the negative perception bestowed on same-sex marriages. Cultural beliefs that undermine the role of same-sex parenting have an impact on the efficacy of gay couples as parents. This has affected the laws that influence adoption. Therefore, most parents end up ignoring the legal procedure of adoption. Barriers to adoption among gay couples lead to behavioral, cognitive, and emotional stressors to sexual minorities. This has an adverse impact on their well-being. Stigma results from social beliefs that same-sex parents cannot meet all the needs of a child. Therefore, gay couples anticipate such attitudes against them, which affect their roles in adoption (Goldberg and Smith, 2009).

This information is meant to create self-awareness amongst professionals in the health care domain. Initially, I believed that gay couples could not adopt a child because they lacked legal grounds to support their cause. However, this study has made me aware that gay couples have legal rights if they want to adopt. Despite the stigma directed towards them, same-sex couples are able to parent children just like heterosexual couples. Furthermore, cultural limits that affect the legalization of adoption are weakening (Oswald and Masciadrelli, 2008). Therefore, they are opening up avenues for gay couple adoptions. In health care delivery, professional biases and stereotypes linked to the gay couple adoptions are shifting focus and embracing the practice.

Rather than basing on cultural, social, and ideological perspectives to determine the ability of a gay couple to adopt, concerned professionals should reflect on the legal requirements while handling adoptions by gay couples. Therefore, professionals should act within the confines of the law, but not their subjective judgments in executing their obligations (Leedy and Connolly, 2007).

Just like the rest of the population, I had a negative attitude towards gay couple adoptions. My attitude was based on cultural beliefs that devalued the role of gay couples in parenting. However, this study has made me aware that parenting is not affected by gender. Furthermore, gender roles are concepts of social processes that suppress the abilities of each gender. Therefore, just like women, men are also able to nurture children (Oswald and Masciadrelli, 2008).

Gay couples encounter a lot of barriers while seeking adoption. This information is useful in formal and informal contexts to counteract these limitations. Social, cultural and ideological limits are superseded by the law. Therefore, the attitude of the society should shift from the cultural model of determining adoption, to legal procedures.

Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2009). Perceived parenting skill across the transition to adoptive parenthood among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology , 23 (1), 861 – 870.

Leedy, G., & Connolly, C. (2007). Out in the cowboy state: A look at lesbian and gay lives in Wyoming. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services , 19 (1), 17 – 34.

Oswald, R. F., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2008). Generative ritual among nonmetropolitan lesbians and gay men: Promoting social inclusion. Journal of Marriage and Family , 70 (1), 1060 – 1073.

Pew Research Center. (2013). How many same-sex marriages in the U.S.? At least 71,165, probably more .

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 10). Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/

"Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." IvyPanda , 10 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness'. 10 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." April 10, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

1. IvyPanda . "Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." April 10, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." April 10, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

Why Gay Marriages Should Not Be Legalized?
Gay Marriage and Parenting
Same-Sex Marriage: Sociopolitical
Civil Union: Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples' Marriages
Constitutional Amendment that Allows Same-sex Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage as a Positive Tendency Nowadays
Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in San Francisco
Gay Marriage Legalization
California’s Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriages
Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, And America’s Children
Cook County, Illinois: Palatine Community Planning and Intervention
Challenges Associated with Reentry: Social Acceptance and the Related Issues
Impact of Group Responses on Sick, Bereaved, or Imprisoned Individuals
Human Sexuality and Sex Education Studies in China
Teenage Suicide in South Africa: A Survey Tool Design

Essay about Gay Couples Should Have the Same Rights as Married Couples

Gay Couples Should Have the Same Rights as Married Couples One of the leading political debates in our country today is the legalization of same-sex marriages. The very image of marriage is evolving on an on-going basis due to society and the major changes between society defined unions. The definition of marriage , as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, states “Marriage, n., (1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage < same-sex marriage >.” The change was not made until 2003. Marriage, as per society, is a special event in …show more content…

Giving these rights to same-sex couples would not change the “church’ dynamics in any way nor would it make any change their faith or religious practices. All couples, whether heterosexual or same-sex, would still be free to make their own judgments about what marriage mean in their world. For example in Catholic churches if you are divorced and remarried then your second marriage may not be recognized by the church at all. The government and the church are separate entities and should remain that way. Church as a whole is still able to set their own policies on same-sex unions just as it always have. Some of the religion and/or churches that have given same-sex couples their blessings are Judaism Reformed, Unitarian Universalist and the Metropolitan Community Church. Family units as a whole have become very diverse in today’s society. Quite a few “straight” families today only have single parent homes however if a same-sex couples want to adopt we are told no. The structure of a family’s relationship is less important than the quality of family relationships. Basically same-sex couples are able to teach children the same qualities as heterosexual couples where they will grow into good and responsible individuals. Same-sex couples are able to provide the same type of loving, stable and happy home where not every home in American is able to do so not matter what the living situation is. Research has shown that children raised by same-sex

Essay about The Case for Gay Marriage

12 Works Cited

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights

Individual Rights Advocate Analysis

Marriage has been defined as “the legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of husband and wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.” (Marriage, n.d.) In 1973, Maryland became “the first state to pass a statute banning marriage between same-sex couples.” (Freedom to Marry, 2015) After much debate, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled for a ‘Freedom to Marry’ in all states, even against the states who still had a ban on same-sex marriage. (Freedom to Marry, 2015) Obviously, even with a federal ruling and over thirty years, there is still a

Same Sex Marriage Has Changed Over Time

The definition of marriage has changed over time. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the United States defined marriage as a union between a consenting man and woman, of non-African decent (Stahlberg, 2008, p. 443). This, however, changed after the civil war. In 1868 two consenting adults of opposite gender could marry someone of the same race, but this was also restructured in 1967 to allow marriage of all consenting adults of opposite genders regardless of race (Stahlberg, 2008, p. 443). Today, the law looks very different. Recently, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marriage (gay marriage, 2015).

Essay on Gay marriage

Homosexual marriage is one of the old but controversial issues around the world. Compared to the past, it seems to become a more open debate among people. At the same time, people seem to be more swayable than before, but towards the gay marriage, different voices have still been hovering in the air. Gay people and their supporters have been striving for their rights to get married legally, while others who against gay marriage have never stopped deterring it.

The Stonewall Riots: The Fight For Gay Rights

Among young influential minds, The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington DC. evoked foster care placement to prevent the ability of children being placed in homosexual homes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 16 states, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation...have the right to marry...found a family... entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution…” (UDHR, 1948). Not defending the ability to same-sex marriage. In New Jersey a Methodist Ocean Grove Camp declined a Civil Union Ceremony. Religious beliefs argue that in the bible God does not promote or support gay marriage. Supporting their reasons in the bible, as stated by God, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither...nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1st Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)). Debates continue in several schools. At a school in Florida a social studies teacher posted a comment on facebook criticizing same-sex marriage. In other schools teachers dismissed students involved in homosexual relationships claiming to be uncomfortable. Therefore, many will argue the several consequences to allowing same-sex marriage, but the inability to see past the discrimination among Americans prevent a growth in our society. Positivity can be created through Americans creating a

Gay Rights Essay

Gay rights and marriage equality has always been a major issue. Not only in the United States, but all throughout various cultures in the world. One of the main reasons why it is not widely accepted is due to religious or cultural reasons. Thankfully, more people have become more accepting of it and keeping an open mind about it. As of June 26th, 2015, gay marriage has has finally been legalized in all 50 states. However, there are still people who do not agree with it and still try to vote against it. Some Americans even want laws made to ban same-sex marriage and relations again. Although the legalization of same-sex marriage has been accomplished, most people continue to fight against those who still discriminate against the LGBT community.

Let Gays Marry and Leave Marriage Alone Essay

1 Works Cited

I will summarize some of the key points from the essay, Let Gays Marry, by Andrew Sullivan, and the essay, Leave Marriage Alone, by William Bennett. Some of these main points are taken from mutual beliefs of both authors and others are derived from the opposing opinions of the two.

Same Sex Marriage First Amendment Essay

Same-sex marriage should be protected as First Amendment. Same-sex marriage is a just right, proven by Bill of Rights and Supreme Court. Attacking same-sex marriage law against Americans’ Bill of Rights.

In our society we should protect LGBT rights it’s unfair that we treat them differently.

Gay marriage persuasive essay

The debate between whether gay marriage should be legalized or not has been a controversial topic recently. In the past twelve years, equal marriage rights have been legalized in 6 states of the U.S.. Eighteen states do not allow gay marriage and do not recognize civil unions. The other twenty six states allow civil unions, and some are debating legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage should be legal across the United States.

What Does Gay Rights Mean To You Essay

“It takes no compromise to give people their rights… it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” This is an extract taken from the biography of Harvey Milk, the first gay person elected into public office in California.

Essay on Gay Marriage

7 Works Cited

Same-sex marriage and straight marriage do not have the same rights. Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. If same-sex couples enter a civil union they are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided federal law to married couples. Being denied to all these rights they should have may harm people who also experienced discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, gender, and religion. The APA (American Psychological Association) believes it is unfair to discriminate and deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and all of the benefits, rights and privileges. (Wikipedia)

Should gay marriages be legalized? Essay

3 Works Cited

     Same-sex marriages have been very controversial since becoming an issue in Canada regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Several people state that same-sex marriages should be legal, while others disagree, saying it should not be permitted. There have been many debates and inquiries about this issue for several years; the MP’s and Parliament will finally settle the problem within the next year or so. Many are in favour of legalizing same-sex marriages in all of Canada due to the violations and infringes upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Problems revolving around same-sex marriages have upset many religious groups. These groups believe that same-sex

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal? Essay

In addition gays and lesbians marriage should be legal because it is just a way of the State recognize these common unions now days. It happens independent of the law and the religious topic involved, and if the government can not be left out of same sex marriage issue, the better thing that should be done was legalize it. The Vatican says homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity . Actually the real reason the Vatican opposes gay marriage is that its goal is to press the governments to "contain the phenomenon" of homosexual sex. But it is a vague argument since homosexuals, as straight people, almost always choose someone whose difference from themselves makes them admirable, exciting or interesting in some way. So, "affective complementarity" applies just as well to gay marriage.

Essay about Equal Rights for the Gay Community

In this country there is a flawed assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil right protections as everyone else and there are a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships. Living as a gay individual in this country can be extremely overwhelming and scary. When it comes to marriage between gay couples, controversy is bound to turn up. There are numerous arguments as to why gay marriage is not “right” such as; it offends everything religion stands for, marriage is for procreation, and gay

Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma

Introduction, historic overview, same-sex marriage and utilitarianism, deontological dilemma, virtue ethics, natural law, elements of thought and intellectual standards, my perception.

Although marriage is defined as a legal union of people entering a personal relationship, the most widespread perception of it involves a man and a woman. Even in the age of tolerance, same-sex marriages still provoke a lot of heated debate and attract both positive and negative attention of the general public. The ethical dilemma that arises from this issue can be resolved differently depending on the ethical theory applied to it.

The paper at hand is going to analyze gay marriage from the perspectives of different theories and juxtapose the opponents’ arguments, using elements of thought and intellectual standards.

The first known record of gay bonds dates back to the 1 century AD. Nero, a Roman emperor, entered two same-sex marriages thereby becoming the first monarch to take such an eccentric step. Yet, this example was not exclusive. There were a lot of same-sex unions mentioned in Greek writings (however, those couples were rarely married officially). Constantius II outlawed same-sex marriage in 342 AD since it went against Christian morals. Since then, gay couples in many countries had to conceal their relationships to avoid legal prosecution or public damnation. This accounts for the fact that same-sex marriage is considered to be a 21 st -century issue as several countries have already legalized it (following the Netherlands, where it happened in 2000) (Heaphy, Smart, & Einarsdottir, 2013).

Nowadays, the issue has become so controversial that divergent ethical theories can be applied to it.

Utilitarian ethics suggests that the rights choice is simply the one that allows receiving maximum benefit while bringing minimum harm. Supporters of gay marriage frequently resort to this theory as it makes it easier to prove that direct advantages of such bonds outnumber the so-called indirect harms. First and foremost, legalizing same-sex marriages means admitting that people have been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation for many centuries and finally putting an end to this. Second, it allows gay couples to become normal members of society and be perceived without shock or aggression. Last but not least, this step gives a lot of children a chance to be brought up in a loving family as a lot of same-sex couples are willing to adopt a baby (Vaughn, 2015).

The situation is more complex from deontology (a theory that was proposed by Immanuel Kant). According to deontological ethics, the morality of an action is determined by its ability to follow the universal set of rules (Vaughn, 2015). Thus, if gay marriages manage to adhere to regulations, they can be considered justified.

The problem is that current same-sex marriage laws are not universal, which means that, from the philosophical point of view, such unions obey one set of laws while violating all the others (in many countries gay marriage is still forbidden). Still, if we analyze the concept of traditional marriage, we will see that laws related to it are also far from being universal. Thus, following the same logic, they can be called immoral and ethically wrong, which sounds nonsensical. This means that the deontological theory is too much dogmatic to be applied to such a delicate issue.

This ethical theory relies upon the assumption that one should shift the focus of attention from abstract values and norms to a particular moral agent. Therefore, to resolve the ethical dilemma of gay marriage, it is required to identify whether moral agents manage to correspond to the ideal marriage institution (Macedo, 2015). Although this position seems well-grounded and reasonable, it is still unclear what criteria must be used for assessment. Furthermore, there are no guidelines to identify whether the needs of adults or children should be made the cornerstone (though the former are automatically privileged). Finally, gay marriage could never be legalized if an example of one couple and their virtues could stand for all others.

This is the simplest approach of all, which came from the tradition established already in Ancient Greece and later adopted by Christians. Its proponents state that any society needs children for maintaining its existence and they cannot be born from same-sex couples (Macedo, 2015). This implies that such relationships go against nature and must be universally forbidden as they lead to the extinction of our species.

To come to my conclusion about same-sex marriage, I analyzed both arguing sides using elements of reasoning and universal intellectual standards (Vaughn, 2015):

A thought must have a purpose. Both parties pursue their goals: gay couples want to achieve equality whereas their opponents strive to preserve conservative order.
A thought is aimed to solve a problem. In this aspect, supporters of gay marriages win as they want to eliminate injustice while the other party simply wants to leave everything as it is.
The reasoning should have underlying assumptions. Except for some extreme versions, both positions are well-grounded.
The reasoning should be performed from a particular point of view and contain interpretations. Again, in this case, opponents of gay marriages lose as they often lack a particular viewpoint and express hatred based exclusively on sexual orientation.
A thought must rely on evidence and be shaped by concepts. Unfortunately, the evidence is scarce and contradictory.
All reasoning leads to consequences. In this aspect, no matter which position is accepted, societal consequences are inevitable.

As for intellectual standards, they include (Vaughn, 2015):

significance;

I believe that these standards can only partially be applied to the issue under discussion since it is far from being objective. This means that the opposing arguments cannot be assessed in terms of accuracy, precision, and clarity. Surely, we can try to estimate statistics and see what can be elaborated in terms of lawmaking. Yet, we cannot make it more specific or accurate as it deals with human relationships and such abstract notions as love, happiness, recognition, self-confidence, etc. The issue is relevant, significant, and deep as many factors are complicating it (the future of child-bearing, the life of adopted children, etc.). The complexity lies also in the fact that both parties have their own, rather convincing logic. As for fairness, I doubt that any of their arguments are completely unbiased.

I feel confused that in the 21 st century promoting tolerance, acceptance, and political correctness, it is still normal to have a prejudice against sexual minorities, whose only fault is being attracted to people of the same gender. I am convinced that it is ethical to allow gay marriages since sexual orientation is largely determined by biological factors, which implies that people are not to blame for having it and should not be deprived of their rights. However, it is more complex with adoption since the freedom of the one is limited by the freedom of the other. Some children are unwilling to be brought up in such a family and may have a psychological trauma on this basis. Perhaps, it would be reasonable to allow gay couples to adopt only those who are old enough to give their conscious consent.

Heaphy, B., Smart, C., & Einarsdottir, A. (2013). Same sex marriages: New generations, new relationships . Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Macedo, S. (2015). Just Married: Same-sex couples, monogamy, and the future of marriage . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues . New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

Cite this paper

Select a referencing style

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

AssignZen. (2023, June 6). Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma. https://assignzen.com/gay-marriage-disputes-and-the-ethical-dilemma/

"Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma." AssignZen , 6 June 2023, assignzen.com/gay-marriage-disputes-and-the-ethical-dilemma/.

1. AssignZen . "Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma." June 6, 2023. https://assignzen.com/gay-marriage-disputes-and-the-ethical-dilemma/.

Bibliography

AssignZen . "Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma." June 6, 2023. https://assignzen.com/gay-marriage-disputes-and-the-ethical-dilemma/.

AssignZen . 2023. "Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma." June 6, 2023. https://assignzen.com/gay-marriage-disputes-and-the-ethical-dilemma/.

AssignZen . (2023) 'Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma'. 6 June.

This report on Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on Asignzen, request the removal .

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
A family should ideally have parents and children.
It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011). Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities. Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis: Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal Pediatrics published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage. Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016). Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction

Thesis: Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7:

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”. CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014). Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics. Gen , 10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”. National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief

Recent legal cases before the Supreme Court of the United States were challenging federal definitions of marriage created by the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s voter approved Proposition 8 which limited marriage to different-sex couples only. Social science literature regarding child well-being was being used within these cases, and the American Sociological Association sought to provide a concise evaluation of the literature through an amicus curiae brief. The authors were tasked in the assistance of this legal brief by reviewing literature regarding the well-being of children raised within same-sex parent families. This article includes our assessment of the literature, focusing on those studies, reviews and books published within the past decade. We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. We discuss challenges and opportunities for new research on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) filed an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court outlining social science research findings on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families on February 28, 2013 ( Brief for the American Sociological Association 2013 ). Sociological research was used in a number of cases reaching the Supreme Court, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 in California (Prop 8). A talented legal team led by Carmine Boccuzzi at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton LLP prepared arguments, wrote the final brief, and submitted the brief to the Supreme Court. The ASA has a tradition of contributing the consensus on social science research findings to the legal system.

Below we provide our assessment of the literature that was used to assist in the preparation of the amicus brief. The ASA Council requested a balanced review of the current social science literature on the effects of same-sex parenting on child well-being. The aim of this review was to note that the strengths and weaknesses of prior research and offer a scientific assessment of what can and cannot be concluded from the evidence. The review we present here developed through work with the legal team and has been reorganized and modified for journal publication. Since the filing of the amicus curiae brief, there have been a few new studies which are discussed in the “update” section at the end of the document. The ASA continues to submit amicus briefs in state and circuit court cases.

To date, the consensus in the social science literature is clear: in the United States, children living with two same-sex parents fare, as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. Numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, including many drawing on nationally representative data, form the basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that children raised in same-sex parent families fare just, as well as children raised in different-sex parent families across a wide spectrum of child well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.

This assessment of the literature is based on the social science research on child well-being in same-sex parent families over the last decade (published work since 2002). This time restriction focuses on children’s most recent family experiences. The review is limited to studies based on U.S. respondents and includes over 40 published original studies in reports, book chapters, and journal articles. There have been many recent reviews of the literature (e.g., Biblarz and Stacey 2010a , b ; Biblarz and Savci 2010 ; Bos et al. 2005 ; Marks 2012 ; Meezan and Rauch 2005 ), but few have been recent enough to include all of the latest literature. Taken together, the studies included in this review represent a collection of extensive research and indicate that children under the age of 18 raised by same-sex parents fare, as well as their counterparts in different-sex families. The gold standard for much research on American families is the use of nationally representative data ( Russell and Muraco 2013 ). Yet, as discussed below there are many valid reasons why nationally representative data may not be available to study same-sex parent families. We discuss the handful of recent studies reporting that children fare worse on any measure of child well-being ( Allen et al. 2013 ; Goldberg et al. 2011 ; Gartrell et al. 2011; Regnerus 2012a , b ), and each has shortcomings making broad generalizations impossible.

Data Sources

Table 1 provides a list of the studies used in the review of the literature (as well as the update), and are organized alphabetically. We denote whether the studies are based on nationally representative data or convenience samples; the number of children in same-sex parent families; the age range of children; and type of same-sex parent family. The four nationally representative data sets include the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), New Family Structures Study (NFSS), and U.S. Census data. Each data source reflects family experiences across a unique time period. For example, the ECLS-K is a cohort designed to represent the experiences of children who were in kindergarten and first grade in 1999 and 2000 and mid-adolescents in 2010. The Add Health references the experiences of teenagers (12–18) during the mid-1990s. The Census presents the living circumstances of school-age children in 2000. The NFSS is not specific to an age group or time frame, and it is challenging to assess a broad spectrum of ages and time periods. New data collections that reflect the current social, legal, and political environments are merited.

Description of studies on child well-being in same-sex parent families and data used

Convenience or snowball samples are more common in the literature, and the most widely used data source is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS). The NLLFS is based on interviews with donor-inseminated lesbian mothers five times from insemination or pregnancy to the child’s 17th birthday (e.g., Gartell and Bos 2010; Goldberg et al. 2011 ; van Gelderen et al. 2012a ) and since 2002, 15 studies used these data. This recruitment strategy is considered acceptable given that few national surveys are large enough to include many children raised by same-sex parents. Relying on convenience samples means that the same-sex parents within these studies are not representative of all same-sex parents and represent only those who were targeted and agreed to participate, perhaps selective of the most highly functioning families. Yet, this approach does provide key insights into a group that is challenging to capture in large-scale surveys. At times, the findings from this sample are contrasted to results from a national sample of adolescents in the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) (Gartrell et al. 2012).

As shown in Table 1 , the studies focusing on child well-being are based on a wide range of sample sizes. The sample sizes of same-sex parent families range from 14 ( Welsh 2011 ) to 3,502 ( Rosenfeld 2010 ) with studies including a median of 78 respondents and seven consisting of more than 100 children from same-sex parent families. The range of sample sizes often rests on the methodological approach. Small sample sizes in quantitative surveys can be problematic because they may prevent distinguishing between key sources of variation that differentiate same-sex parent families, such as gender of parent, biological relationship of children to parents, and the time a child has spent in a particular family. Another issue with small sample sizes is statistical inferences may be challenging or harder to detect and may be biased. These issues are recognized by authors, and they at times speak to the range of effect sizes that are detectable with their approach. At the same time, smaller sample sizes in qualitative or observational data, as well as targeted surveys provide an in-depth assessment of specific family experiences that are unavailable in large-scale surveys.

The majority of these studies are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Longitudinal data collections permit temporal alignment of family experiences and child outcome indicators. An advantage of longitudinal data is that causal inferences regarding how family circumstances shape child well-being can be established. However, longitudinal studies may suffer from issues of attrition and typically reference a specific cohort of respondents. A cross-sectional approach provides a snapshot lens on families and may include retrospective reports of children’s living arrangements provided by parents or child respondents. Most cross-sectional work relies on measurement of current family structure and current indicators of well-being (e.g., Averett, Nalavany and Ryan 2009 ; Erich et al. 2005 ; Farr et al. 2010 ; Rosenfeld 2010 ), and a few studies retrospectively determine family structure and well-being based on recall of childhood experiences (e.g., Goldberg 2007a ; Joos and Broad 2007 ; Regnerus 2012b ). Two key exceptions are analyses using the ECLS-K and the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Survey (NLLFS) which are both longitudinal panel surveys. As shown in Table 1 a wide variety of data collection strategies has been employed to study child well-being in same-sex parent families.

Academic Performance and Cognitive Development

The academic performance of children raised by same-sex parents is similar to that of children raised by different-sex parents. Most of the nationally representative studies have examined educational outcomes, such as grade retention, math and reading scores, academic achievement, grade point average, trouble in school, educational attainment, and school connectedness. Rosenfeld (2010) relies on Census data to focus on grade retention among children living in stable same-sex and different-sex families. He finds that overall grade retention of children is highest in different-sex married parent families and lower among same-sex couples, separated or divorced parents, cohabiting parents, or never-married parents. Yet, the differences are due to parental socioeconomic status and not due to relationship type. 1 Allen et al. (2013) report similar findings when comparing children of residentially stable same-sex parents with children of stable different-sex married parents. Research regarding grade retention utilizing Census data must limit their analyses to residentially stable families because retrospective family histories are not collected, making it impossible to assess family composition when the child was held back in school. Thus, the Allen et al. (2013) findings which show family type distinctions in grade retention among children in residentially unstable families are not conclusive.

Fedewa and Clark (2009) use the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) and report no significant differences in terms of academic achievement for first grade children based on family living arrangements in kindergarten. Additionally, assessments of math and reading achievement scores in the ECLS-K data are similar among children (through 8th grade) in same-sex parent families and divorced, stepparent, single parent, cohabiting, and widowed families ( Potter 2012 ). Children who experienced same-sex parent families initially score lower in reading and math scores than children from two biological married families. However, accounting for sociodemographic indicators explains the reading gap in same-sex and different-sex married parent families, and the association between family structure and math achievement is no longer statistically significant with the inclusion of number of family transitions ( Potter 2012 ).

A similar set of results is observed among older children. Among adolescents in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Wainright et al. (2004) find similar patterns of GPA scores and troubles in school among those living in female, same-sex couple and different-sex couple families. The scores of school connectedness or social integration are initially significantly greater in female same-sex couple families, but again this difference is explained by the parental socioeconomic status.

Additionally, research based on small scale samples indicates similar cognitive development ( Lavner, Waterman and Peplau 2012 ) among children raised in same-sex and different-sex families. Evidence from the series of Gartrell and colleagues papers using the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) indicates similar educational outcomes among children who lived with same-sex lesbian parents compared with an age-matched representative sample of children ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ; Gartrell et al. 2005 , 2011, 2012, 2012). A larger scale purposive sample of parents and children from same-sex parents ( Kosciw and Diaz 2008 ) indicates that gay and lesbian parents and children score at least as well on numerous indicators of educational achievement and involvement as parents and children reported in national studies.

Social Development

The social development of children raised by same-sex parents is similar to that of children raised by different-sex parents. Fedewa and Clark (2012) rely on the ECLS-K data and report no significant differences in first grade social adjustment based on whether they were living with different-sex or same-sex parents in kindergarten. Evidence about adolescent social well-being rests on the Wainright and colleagues studies using Add Health data and Gartrell and colleagues work using the NLLFS. Wainwright and Patterson (2008) find that the number, support, and quality of peer relationships are similar for teens living in female, same-sex couple families, and those living with different-sex parents. The one family type distinction found in female friend support was no longer statistically significant with the inclusion of sociodemographic indicators. Research based on the NLLFS indicates that adolescents of same-sex parents experienced fewer social problems than a nationally representative age-matched sample of American youths ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ).

Psychological Well-Being

In terms of psychological well-being, findings from nationally representative data indicate that adolescents in female, same-sex and different-sex couple families report similar scores on depressive symptoms and self-esteem ( Wainright et al. 2004 ). The presence of higher levels of anxiety found among children in female, same-sex couples no longer exist once parental sociodemographic indicators were accounted for ( Wainright et al. 2004 ). The NLLFS shows that child scores on ADD/ADHD, anxiety, and depression were similar to the levels reported among similar aged teenagers ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ; Gartrell et al. 2012). Further contrasts between the NLLFS respondents and a matched sample with heterosexual parents indicate similar scores on positive aspects of psychological adjustment ( van Gelderen et al. 2012b ). Other research utilizing smaller convenience samples replicated the above findings using the different versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Behavioral Emotional Rating Scale (BERS). Across these studies, children’s scores on measures of internalizing behavioral adjustments did not differ by family type ( Erich et al. 2005 ; Farr et al. 2010 ; Farr and Patterson 2009 ; Fulcher et al. 2006 ; Lavner et al. 2012 ; Leung et al. 2005 ; Ryan 2007 ; Tan and Baggerly 2009 ).

Sexual Activity

Based on evidence from nationally representative data, similar proportions of teenagers from female, same-sex couple and different-sex couple families have had a romantic relationship and sexual intercourse ( Patterson and Wainright 2012 ). In fact, sexual behaviors reported by 17 year olds in the NLLFS indicate that their age at first sex was older than those in a gender and age-matched national sample (National Sample of Family Growth or NSFG) (Gartrell et al. 2012). The odds of having a STI or getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant were statistically similar among adolescents in the NLLFS and national samples (Gartrell et al. 2012). Yet, at the bivariate level (no controls for socioeconomic status) contraceptive use is lower in same-sex parent families than reported by adolescents in the NSFG (Gartrell et al. 2011). In addition, none of the respondents in the NLLFS experienced physical or sexual abuse by a parent or caregiver (Gartrell et al. 2011). While the Regnerus ( 2012a , b ) studies include a measure of any childhood sexual victimization, there is no way to link this experience to the time spent in any particular family structure. In fact, Regnerus (2012b) , states “As noted in the original study text, the NFSS data is insufficiently capable of discerning much information about the context surrounding respondents’ sexual victimization. No simplistic conclusions about it ought to be discerned from the analyses.” (p. 1376).

Problem Behaviors

Wainright and Patterson (2006) find that in a nationally representative sample, adolescents living with female, same-sex parents fare similarly to their counterparts raised in different-sex parent families in terms of frequency of substance use (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana), problems with substance use, and delinquent behavior. Drawing on the NLLFS, Goldberg et al. (2011) reports that at the bivariate level, adolescents from same-sex parent families have higher levels of occasional substance use, but similar levels of heavy substance use compared with children in the Monitoring the Future Data set. Furthermore, the NLLFS respondents report similar levels of problem behaviors, rule-breaking behavior, and aggressive behavior as age-matched respondents from the National Study of Family Growth (NSFG) ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ). Additional convenience samples indicate related findings; children in same-sex and different-sex parent families performed similarly on various externalizing behavioral indicators of child development contained in the CBCL ( Erich et al. 2005 ; Farr et al. 2010 ; Farr and Patterson 2009 ; Fulcher et al. 2006 ; Lavner et al. 2012 ; Leung et al. 2005 ; Tan and Baggerly 2009 ) and Behavioral Emotional Rating Scale ( Ryan 2007 ).

Differentials in Child Well-Being in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Families

Even though a handful of studies does indicate that children fare worse on a few measures of child well-being ( Allen et al. 2013 ; Goldberg et al. 2011 ; Gartrell et al. 2011; Regnerus 2012a , b ), the majority of literature finds no differences between those raised in same-sex and different-sex parent families. Research conducted by Regnerus ( 2012a , b ) stands apart because it has been widely brought forth as evidence that children in same-sex parent families do not fare, as well as children in different-sex families. This is surprising because Regnerus (2012a) himself states thatthe New Family Structures Study (NFSS)—“is poised to address [questions] about the lives of young adults between the ages of 18 and 39, but not about children or adolescents.” (p. 755).

Rosenfeld (2010) and Allen et al. (2013) both report that children in residentially stable families with same-sex and different-sex parents have similar grade progression in school. By introducing residentially unstable households into analyses, Allen et al. (2013) find differentials in school retention for children in same-sex and different-sex parent families. This approach generates substantial bias because the living arrangements of when the child was held back in school cannot be established. As noted by Rosenfeld (2013) , children come into same-sex parent families from a variety of situations, including orphanages, foster families, and divorced or separated heterosexual families. Thus, children living with same-sex couple parents may start out with educational disadvantages that accrued before they came to be raised by same-sex couples.

Goldberg et al. (2011) report that children from same-sex parent families have higher levels of occasional substance use, but similar levels of heavy substance use than children in the Monitoring the Future data. The Gartrell et al. (2011) study finds lower levels of having ever used contraception among children in same-sex parent families than the results based on nationally representative data (NSFG). However, both of these studies do not account for socioeconomic circumstances, which may explain the family type differences.

Although the data used for the research performed by Regnerus ( 2012a , b ) are based on nationally representative data, the results from these studies are suspect. The data possess critical flaws in the basic measurement of family structure and assessments of child outcomes. As quoted above Regnerus (2012a) himself claims these data are not to be used to assess the well-being of children or adolescents.

The most fundamental shortcoming of this study is that it does not examine children of parents raised in same-sex parent families. The measurement of family structure in the Regnerus studies does not follow traditional conventions used in the literature on family structure and child well-being. Unlike any other study, the same-sex family indicator is based on adult children’s recollection of their parents’ sexual experiences and orientation with questions regarding the gender composition of parental romantic relationships ( Regnerus 2012a ). 2 This strategy presumes that adult children have accurate recall and knowledge of their parent’s sexual partnerships and to our knowledge has not been used in prior work on family structure and child well-being.

Second, even though most research on family structure is typically based on the child’s residence, the initial study ( Regnerus 2012a ) did not measure whether the respondent had lived with the parent who at some point had a same-sex sexual partner. Thus, adults were categorized as being raised by a same-sex parent regardless of whether they had ever even lived with this parent and his or her romantic partner. Responding to this shortcoming, Regnerus, in the follow-up paper ( Regnerus 2012b ), included a family category based on whether the respondent had spent time living with a mother who had a same-sex sexual partner. There were 85 respondents in this category of adults who had spent some of their childhood with their mother and her same-sex partner.

However, the core contrast group was children raised by completely stable (intact at time of interview for 18–39 year olds) different-sex parent familes. In other words, he removed all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the different-sex groups, leaving only stable, different-sex parent families as the comparison group. This is an unusual strategy because it requires family stability even beyond childhood. While the data are available, this work does not account for the duration of time spent in same-sex mother families or any other type of family. Typically, stability would be a factor in the analytic models which most likely would explain much of the observed differences between these conceptualized family types. Indeed, only 2 of the 85 children who Regnerus categorized as living within a same-sex parent family spent their entire childhood in a same-sex parent family, and none of the parents were legally permitted to marry when the child was born. Thus, the analyses are comparing quite different experiences: adult children who reported living their entire childhood and adulthood while living at home in stable, married, different-sex, two parent families to adult children who spent some portion of their childhood living in unstable, unmarried, same-sex, and two parent families.

Third, the Regnerus studies include retrospective indicators of childhood experiences that do not account for when these experiences occurred or if they lived with their parent’s same-sex partner at the time. The recorded experiences included one behavioral retrospective indicator of well-being during childhood, sexual contact by an adult, and two indicators of perceptions (family safety or security and negative impact of the family). This use of retrospective measures reporting perceptions is not typically used in social science research on child well-being. In this case, asking about prior behavioral outcomes or childhood perceptions makes it impossible to determine whether these outcomes occurred during the time they lived with their mother’s same-sex partner or during another childhood family experience. Given that Regnerus (2012b) reports that very few of the respondents lived in with their mother and her same-sex partner from birth to age 18, most of the respondents who lived with their mother and her same-sex partner are referencing experiences that occurred outside of the same-sex parent family experience. Thus, these data cannot be used to determine whether these occurred, while living in a same-sex parent family. Further, the range of recall is potentially long with a 20 year time window for 35 year olds reflecting on his or her mid-adolescent family experiences and a 10 year time window for 25 year olds.

While this study has been put forth to weigh in on the well-being of children today in the United States, it does not reflect the contemporary experiences of children. The wide age range of the NFSS makes it challenging to generalize to any age group or time period. For example, the NFSS reflects the experiences of five year olds from roughly 1976 to 1998 or the experiences of 16 year olds from 1998 to 2009. As a result, this study does not reflect the current social, legal, or political environment.

Taken together, the studies conducted by Regnerus do not provide empirical evidence regarding the effects of being raised in a same-sex parent family and their influences on child well-being. Assessments of child well-being in same-sex parent families cannot be made using these data because of the flawed measurement of core family measures as well as outcome indicators. Regnerus (2012a) himself confirms this statement and clearly states that “I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent.” (p. 766).

Next Steps in the Study of Same-Sex Parent Families

The field of research on child well-being in same-sex and different-sex parent families is expanding with significant advances. There are exciting avenues to be addressed in future research that we have identified and have been discussed in other reviews of the field. Even though there are new directions of research to pursue, there remains a clear consensus in the literature on child well-being.

Identifying same-sex parent families presents several challenges ( Gates Gates and Newport 2012 ; National Center for Family & Marriage Research 2011 ). Most large-scale, nationally representative surveys often do not include questions regarding a parent’s sexual orientation identity, attraction, and behavior, but rely on the gender composition of household members ( IOM 2011 ). For example, assessments of trends in same-sex parent families often rest on analyses of Census data that permit identification of same-sex parents who are living in couple households. In other words, the child is living with two parents who are of the same sex and report living with an “unmarried partner” or spouse. While the strategy of relying on household rosters moves forward our understanding of patterns and trends on a large scale in Census data, it leaves out children currently being raised by single lesbian or gay parents. In other words, current counts of same-sex parent families which rely on couple-based indicators exclude parents who identify themselves as gay or lesbian who are single. Further, the gender composition of the household focuses on children under age, the age of 18 who are living with their parents at the time of interview and exclude parents of older children or those who are nonresidential. In addition, there is variability in awareness of their parents’ sexual orientation which may be consequential in assessments of same-sex parent family life and child well-being ( Goldberg 2007b ).

Our understanding of same-sex parent families rests largely on the experiences in lesbian mother families. Much of the research on child outcomes in same-sex parent families focuses on lesbian mother families compared to gay father families (exceptions, Patterson and Tornello 2010 ; Tornello et al. 2011 ). Specific assessments about the family life of bisexual parents are typically ignored in the literature (exceptions, Kosciw and Diaz 2008 ; Goldberg 2007a , b ; Joos and Broad 2007 ).

An issue plaguing all research on family structure and child well-being is the selection of the comparison group. Much prior work compares child well-being in intact, two biological, married parent families versus other family experiences. Yet, fewer than half of the children in the United States will experience a stable, two biological, married parent family ( Kreider and Ellis 2011 ). This contrast is particularly problematic among same-sex parents who until recently did not have the option to legally marry. As same-sex parents have new opportunities to enter marital unions, it will be important to consider parental marital status. In fact, two same-sex parents may be more akin to two different-sex parents cohabiting than married families. Indeed, perhaps the appropriate contrast family type should be two parent different-sex biological parent families or two parent different-sex stepparent families. Because same-sex parent families can at the most have one biological parent, comparisons to step families may be most prudent. Further, contrasts between adopted children of same-sex and different-sex parent families may provide insights by accounting for the adoption status of the child.

Typically research on family structure accounts for family resources and stability; and prior literature regarding children in different-sex parent families indicates that parental union status and stability are associated with child well-being ( Brown 2010 ). Stable same-sex parent families may confer more benefits for child well-being than unstable same-sex parent families. It is important for research on child well-being to account for the duration or stability of family life. Developmental perspectives suggest that a child’s age when family change is experienced is associated with child well-being. New studies of same-sex parent families should acknowledge the timing of same-sex family formation or dissolution. Further, differences in child well-being according to family type that may be initially observed are typically explained with the inclusion of sociodemographic indicators. Parental resources are critical to child development and are important to include in studies of child well-being. Thus, careful attention to socioeconomic characteristics is important in future research.

Finally, there are a variety of pathways to parenthood for same-sex parent families including the following: traditional biological parenthood, reproductive technologies, adoption, and foster care, as well as parenting partner’s children ( Biblarz and Savci 2010 ; Gates 2011 ). Appearing to have implications for a child’s socioeconomic advantage, the pathways to parenthood may influence child well-being ( Chan et al. 1998 ; Gates 2011 ). Those children with experience in the foster care system and who are adopted may come to same-sex parent families with more disadvantaged backgrounds than children living in other types of families. Acknowledging these diverse pathways to parenthood is a key avenue for future work on child well-being.

Since the preparation of the amicus curiae brief for the ASA, there have been several newly published U.S. based child well-being studies ( Farr and Patterson 2013 ; Goldberg and Smith 2013 ) and reviews ( Baumle 2013 ; Biblarz et al. 2014 ; Moore and Stambolis-Ruhstorfer 2013 ; Perrin et al. 2013 ) as well a new article showcasing the characteristics of lesbian mothers (Brewster et al. forthcoming). Moore and Stambolis-Ruhstorfer (2013) provide a thoughtful and comprehensive review of the sociological literature on LBGT sexuality, families and its intersection with race and ethnicity. Their review of the evidence accords with our assessment of the field. Further, Perrin et al. (2013) provide a detailed critique to the Regnerus studies. The Biblarz et al. (2014) review provides an insightful perspective and accords well with our assessment of the literature. They point out that comparisons of different-sex and same-sex parent families are challenging because same-sex parent families do not uniformly benefit from the same legal and societal protections as different-sex parent families. In addition, Biblarz et al. (2014) articulate issues of selection based in part on which same-sex couples can become parents. A new empirical paper by Brewster and colleagues document the many dimensions and pathways to motherhood that lesbian mothers take using national representative data (NSFG). These pathways to motherhood may have implications for the well-being of children in same-sex parent families. Compton (2013) reports on the successes and challenges in the application of demographic data to measure and study same-sex parent families. Additional chapters in the Buamle (2013) edited volume, International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, provide excellent analysis of a range of topics including measurement of same-sex couples, same-sex identity, as well as stability of same-sex couples. In terms of new research on child well-being, Goldberg and Smith (2013) examine 120 families who have adopted children younger than 18 months old. Utilizing longitudinal data they report that adopted children fare as well in terms of externalizing and internalizing behaviors across male same-sex, female same-sex, and different-sex families. The Farr and Patterson (2013) study focuses on parenting processes and the relationship with child well-being in adopted male same-sex, female same-sex, and different-sex families. The authors conclude that parenting processes may differ across family types, but key factors, such as co-parenting, operate in a similar fashion according to family type.

This review outlines the findings and critiques of the literature on child well-being in same-sex parent families. The literature includes many studies, over forty in the last ten years, employing a wide spectrum of approaches. No singular research strategy represents a perfect assessment of child outcomes of same-sex parent families, with each study possessing several strengths and weaknesses. To date the consensus in the recent social science literature is clear: children living with two same-sex parents fare just as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. All researches on American families are recognizing an evolving range of childhood family experiences. The authors of studies and reviews on same-sex parent families agree that this is an important family context within the American landscape and further research on the well-being of children who live with same-sex parents is warranted. We need to continue to pursue multiple methodological strategies to best understand child well-being. One promising strategy is for new data collections to include over samples of LBGT respondents to ensure large samples of children raised in same-sex parent families. It is important that data collections keep pace with the full range of experiences of children in American families.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959). Additional support was provided by the American Sociological Assosication.

1 Rosenfeld (2010) further reports similar findings are observed when drawing similar sized samples of different-sex couples as well as employing propensity score matching.

2 Regnerus (2012a) : “From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?” Response choices were “Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman,” “Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man,” or “no.” (Respondents were also able to select both of the first two choices.) If they selected either of the first two, they were asked about whether they had ever lived with that parent while they were in a same-sex romantic relationship.”

Allen DW, Pakaluk C, Price J. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school: A comment on Rosenfeld. Demography. 2013; 50 :1–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Averett P, Nalavany B, Ryan S. An evaluation of gay/lesbian and heterosexual adoption. Adoption Quarterly. 2009; 12 (3-4):129–151. [ Google Scholar ]
Baumle AK, editor. International handbook on the demography of sexuality. Vol. 5. Springer; Dordrecht: 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
Biblarz TJ, Carroll M, Burke N. Same-sex families. In: Treas J, J Scott, Richards M, editors. The wiley-blackwell companion to the sociology of families. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken: 2014. pp. 109–131. [ Google Scholar ]
Biblarz TJ, Savci E. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (3):480–497. [ Google Scholar ]
Biblarz TJ, Stacey J. How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010a; 72 (1):3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
Biblarz TJ, Stacey J. Ideal families and social science ideals. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010b; 72 (1):41–44. [ Google Scholar ]
Bos H, Gartrell N. Adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Can family characteristics counteract the negative effects of stigmatization? Family Process. 2010; 49 (4):559–572. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bos HW, Gartrell NK. Adolescents of the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: The impact of having a known or an unknown donor on the stability of psychological adjustment. Human Reproduction. 2011; 26 (3):630–637. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bos HW, Gartrell NK, Peyser H, van Balen F. The USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS): Homophobia, psychological adjustment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies. 2008a; 12 (4):455–471. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bos HW, Gartrell NK, van Balen F, Peyser HH, Sandfort TM. Children in planned lesbian families: A cross-cultural comparison between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2008b; 78 (2):211–219. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bos H, Goldberg N, Van Gelderen L, Gartrell N. Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Male role models, gender role traits, and psychological adjustment. Gender & Society. 2012; 26 (4):603–638. [ Google Scholar ]
Bos HM, van Balen F, van den Boom D. Lesbian families and family functioning: An overview. Patient Education and Counseling. 2005; 59 (3):263–275. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brewster KL, Tillman KH, Jokinen-Gordon H. Demographic Characteristics of Lesbian Parents in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review. forthcoming. [ Google Scholar ]
Brief for the American Sociological Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents. Perry Kristin M., Windsor Respondent Edith Schlain, Hollingsworth Dennis, Perry Kristin M., et al. 133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013) (no. 12-144) United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in her capacity as executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al. and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of The United States House of Representatives, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013) (no. 12-307), 2013 WL 840004. [ Google Scholar ]
Brown SL. Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (5):1059–1077. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chan RW, Brooks RC, Raboy B, Patterson CJ. Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998; 12 :402–419. [ Google Scholar ]
Compton DR. The family and gay men and lesbians. In: Baumle AK, editor. International handbook on the demography of sexuality. Vol. 5. Springer; Dordrecht: 2013. pp. 257–273. [ Google Scholar ]
Erich S, Leung P, Kindle P. A comparative analysis of adoptive family functioning with gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parents and their children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2005; 1 (4):43. [ Google Scholar ]
Farr RH, Forssell SL, Patterson CJ. Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science. 2010; 14 (3):164–178. [ Google Scholar ]
Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Transracial adoption by lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Who completes transracial adoptions and with what results? Adoption Quarterly. 2009; 12 (3-4):187–204. [ Google Scholar ]
Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development. 2013; 84 (4):1226–1240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fedewa AL, Clark TP. Parent practices and home-school partnerships: A differential effect for children with same-sex coupled parents? Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2009; 5 (4):312–339. [ Google Scholar ]
Fulcher M, Chan RW, Raboy B, Patterson CJ. Contact with grandparents among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Parenting: Science & Practice. 2002; 2 (1):61–76. [ Google Scholar ]
Fulcher M, Sutfin EL, Chan RW, Scheib JE, Patterson CJ. Lesbian mothers and their children: Findings from the contemporary families study. In: Omoto AM, Kurtzman HS, editors. Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. American Psychological Association; Washington: 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
Fulcher M, Sutfin EL, Patterson CJ. Individual differences in gender development: Associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes, and division of labor. Sex Roles. 2008; 58 (5-6):330–341. [ Google Scholar ]
Gartrell N, Bos H. US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics. 2010; 126 (1):28–36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gartrell N, Bos H, Goldberg N. Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual risk exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2011a; 40 (6):1199–1209. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gartrell N, Bos H, Goldberg N. New trends in same-sex sexual contact for American adolescents? Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012a; 41 (1):5–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gartrell N, Bos H, Peyser H, Deck A, Rodas C. Family characteristics, custody arrangements, and adolescent psychological well-being after lesbian mothers break up. Family Relations. 2011b; 60 (5):572–585. [ Google Scholar ]
Gartrell N, Bos HW, Peyser H, Deck A, Rodas C. Adolescents with lesbian mothers describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality. 2012b; 59 (9):1211–1229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gartrell N, Rodas C, Deck A, Peyser H, Banks A. The National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2005; 75 (4):518–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gates GJ. Family formation and raising children among same-sex couples. Family Focus On LGBT Families F1. The William’s Institute; 2011. Retrieved November 30 th , 2012 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Badgett-NCFR-LGBT-Families-December-2011.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Gates G, Newport F. Special Report: 3.4 % of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT. 2012 Retrieved January 1st, 2013 http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx .
Goldberg AE. (How) does it make a difference? Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2007a; 77 (4):550–562. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg AE. Talking about family: Disclosure practices of adults raised by lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. Journal of Family Issues. 2007b; 28 (1):100–131. [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg NG, Bos HW, Gartrell NK. Substance use by adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. Journal of Health Psychology. 2011; 16 (8):1231–1240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg AE, Kashy DA, Smith JZ. Gender-typed play behavior in early childhood: Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles. 2012; 67 (9-10):503–515. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg AE, Smith JZ. Predictors of psychological adjustment in early placed adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family Psychology. 2013; 27 (3):431–442. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg AE, Moyer AM, Kinkler LA. Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents’ perceptions of parental bonding during early parenthood. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. 2013; 2 (2):146–162. [ Google Scholar ]
(IOM) Institute of Medicine. (US) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities . The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: building a foundation for better understanding. National Academies Press. Board on the Health of Select Populations, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; Washington, DC: 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Joos KE, Broad KL. Coming out of the family closet: Stories of adult women with LGBTQ parent (s) Qualitative Sociology. 2007; 30 (3):275–295. [ Google Scholar ]
Kosciw JG, Diaz EM. Involved, invisible, ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K-12 schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; New York: [Accessed 21 Jan 2014]. 2008. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1104-1.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Kreider RM, Ellis R. Living arrangements of children: 2009 (Current Population Reports, P70-126) US Census Bureau; Washington, DC: 2011. Retrieved January 10, 2013 www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-126.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Lavner JA, Waterman J, Peplau L. Can gay and lesbian parents promote healthy development in high-risk children adopted from foster care? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2012; 82 (4):465–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Leung P, Erich S, Kanenberg H. A comparison of family functioning in gay/lesbian, heterosexual and special needs adoption. Children and Youth Services Review. 2005; 27 :1031–1044. [ Google Scholar ]
Lick DJ, Patterson CJ, Schmidt KM. Recalled social experiences and current psychological adjustment among adults reared by gay and lesbian parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2013; 9 (3):230–253. [ Google Scholar ]
Marks L. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research. 2012; 41 (4):735–751. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Meezan W, Rauch J. Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America’s children. The Future of Children. 2005; 15 (2):97–113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moore MR, Stambolis-Ruhstorfer M. LGBT sexuality and families at the start of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology. 2013; 39 :491–507. [ Google Scholar ]
National Center for Family & Marriage Research Counting Couples, Counting Families Full Report; Presented at National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland. Jul 19-20, 2011. Retrieved January 8, 2013. http://www.ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/Counting%20Couples/file115721.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Patterson CJ, Tornello SL. Gay fathers’ pathways to parenthood: International Perspectives. Journal of Family Research. 2010; 22 :103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
Patterson CJ, Wainright JL, Pertman Adam. Adolescents with same-sex parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. In: Brodzinsky David M., editor. Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family diversity. Oxford University Press; New York: 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
Perrin AJ, Cohen PN, Caren N. Are children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-differences hypothesis. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health. 2013; 17 (3):327–336. [ Google Scholar ]
Potter D. Same-sex parent families and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (3):556–571. [ Google Scholar ]
Regnerus M. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the new family structures study. Social Science Research. 2012a; 41 (4):752–770. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Regnerus M. Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses. Social Science Research. 2012b; 41 (6):1367–1377. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rosenfeld MJ. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography. 2010; 47 (3):755–775. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rosenfeld MJ, et al. Reply to Allen. Demography. 2013; 50 (3):963–969. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Russell ST, Muraco JA. The use of representative data sets to study LGBT-parent families: Challenges, advantages, and opportunities. In: Goldberg AE, Allen KR, editors. LGBT-parent families. Springer; New York: 2013. pp. 343–356. [ Google Scholar ]
Ryan S. Parent-child interaction styles between gay and lesbian parents and their adopted children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2007; 3 (2-3):105–132. [ Google Scholar ]
Sutfin EL, Fulcher M, Bowles RP, Patterson CJ. How lesbian and heterosexual parents convey attitudes about gender to their children: The role of gendered environments. Sex Roles. 2008; 58 (7-8):501–513. [ Google Scholar ]
Tan TX, Baggerly J. Behavioral adjustment of adopted Chinese girls in single-mother, lesbian-couple, and heterosexual-couple households. Adoption Quarterly. 2009; 12 :171–186. [ Google Scholar ]
Tornello SL, Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Predictors of parenting stress among gay adoptive fathers in the United States. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25 (4):591. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
van Gelderen L, Gartrell N, Bos HW, van Rooij FB, Hermanns JA. Stigmatization associated with growing up in a lesbian-parented family: What do adolescents experience and how do they deal with it? Children and Youth Services Review. 2012a; 34 (5):999–1006. [ Google Scholar ]
van Gelderen L, Henny MW, Bos HW, Gartrell NK, Hermanns JA, Perrin EC. Quality of life of adolescents raised from birth by lesbian mothers: The US National longitudinal family study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 2012b; 33 (1):1–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wainright JL, Patterson CJ. Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 (3):526–530. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wainright JL, Patterson CJ. Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Developmental Psychology. 2008; 44 (1):117–126. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wainright JL, Russell ST, Patterson CJ. Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development. 2004; 75 (6):1886–1898. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Welsh MG. Growing up in a same sex parented family: The adolescent voice of experience. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2011; 7 :49–71. [ Google Scholar ]

LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas That Go Past Getting Down on One Knee

Shelby is a contributing writer for The Knot covering all things weddings.
Shelby is a freelance writer for publications including Vogue, Over the Moon and Allure. She previously served as Senior Editor at Brides and Editor at Lonny Magazine.
Shelby graduated with a bachelor’s degree in English from Scripps College.

Are you on the search for LGBTQIA+ proposal ideas so you can pop the question to your partner in a romantic, creative way? If you have decided to propose , you should look to curate a special moment that feels unique to your relationship and full of excitement.

"Before proposing, you will want to make sure first and foremost that you are both on the same page," advises professional proposal planner Michele Velazquez of The Hearts Bandits . "This is the only way to ensure you get a 'yes' on the proposal day. Once you know that a proposal would be expected, you want to create a budget for the engagement ring if you will be having one and for the proposal itself," says the pro, who boasts more than 13 years of proposal expertise. "Then, you want to think about how you will propose and start creating the plans for bringing the proposal idea to life."

Whether you hope to ask your partner to be your spouse, want to plan a double proposal, or would like to propose back to your fiancé, read ahead to get gay proposal ideas for your special someone.

LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas to Inspire You: The Best Proposal Ideas | Creative Proposal Ideas | Romantic Proposal Ideas

The Best LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas

While every proposal should be unique to you and your partner, read ahead for a few great proposal ideas to inspire your own special moment.

Make It a Big Surprise

While it's important to get an idea if your partner is open to getting married to you ahead of time, you should keep the actual proposal plans a secret. "Never tell a soul! People often think they should tell the people closest to the proposee but it often gets back to them," says Velazquez. "So keep it all locked up. Also, don't leave a trail. Clear your internet history or lock your computer and don't start liking a bunch of jewelers' profiles on social media."

Hire a Professional Photographer

While you will always hold the memory of your proposal, it's never a bad idea to have photos to look back on. "We always recommend hiring a professional photographer for the proposal," shares Velazquez. "Most people want to share the photos on social media and you can also use the professional photos for your engagement announcement."

If you want to save money and not hire a pro, she adds, "We never recommend having a family member in charge of your proposal photos. For one, they may mess it up and then that can cause a riff. Even if they do not miss the moment, they do not typically have the skill to work with lighting, shadows, angles, and more. Also, they want to enjoy watching their loved one get engaged and not have the pressure of capturing a once-in-a-lifetime moment." Pro tip: You can find great proposal and engagement photographers on The Knot Vendor Marketplace .

Do a Double Proposal

To create a more equal balance in their relationship, many LGBTQIA+ couples like to do a double proposal. This occurs when each member of the couple proposes to each other either at the same time or at different dates. "It really isn't too different," Velasquez shares of the planning of this proposal idea. "We treat it just like any other proposal where the other person doesn't know it is happening." Your partner can know that you are planning to propose at some point—or not. Be prepared with a plan, a ring, and maybe expect a proposal back if you go first! If you have a feeling your partner may propose first, consider carrying the ring with you on dates or trips if you want to spontaneously propose at the same time.

Plan a Special Trip

A classic choice for many LGBTQIA+ proposals is to ask your partner to marry you on a vacation. While you are at a beautiful landmark, relaxing retreat, or romantic dinner, take advantage of the excitement around you and get down on one knee. Do some research before your travels to pinpoint the perfect spot. Just be careful while packing for your trip to hide the ring properly (and keep it safe) in your luggage. You can also look locally to hire a photographer to capture the moment.

Hire a Proposal Planner

Need a little extra help formulating your proposal idea? Consider hiring a proposal planner to orchestrate the big moment. "A proposal planner can save a proposer a lot of money, time, and stress," says Velazquez. "An experienced proposal planner can think through things that are not always obvious to the proposer. We think about everything that could go wrong with a proposal and then we build the mitigation strategy into the proposal." She adds, "Proposal planners also have a huge network of vendors. Need a pug for your proposal? No problem. Want a helicopter to land on a cliff? We got you!"

Creative LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas

Want to get a little bit creative with how you pop the question? Read ahead for great LGBTQIA+ proposal ideas that go the extra mile.

Make It Spark

Want to put on a show when you ask your significant other to marry you? "Decorate a space with your partner's favorite flowers," recommends Velazquez. "Pop the question and have cold sparklers set up right after they say yes!" To prepare, reach out to a rental company to get the sparklers arranged. Purchasing a kit yourself can run around $700. You should also reach out to a florist or visit your local flower mart to prepare arrangements for the space. Have a friend on hand or someone from the rental company there to help cue the sparklers after they say "yes."

Spell It Out

Want to put all your love into words? "Rent out the letters 'Marry Me' or a special phrase that the two of you share," suggests Velazquez. "Set up the letters at a private venue and bring your partner there to propose." Reach out to an events company to find large marquee letters for the big moment. You can also purchase a sign on Amazon or Etsy for a more affordable option. Make sure everything is in place and will be set for when you return to the area later with your partner.

Organize a Performance

Surprise your partner with a live performance of their favorite song by a local band (or the actual musician). During or after the song, get down on one knee and ask them to marry you. To prepare, do some outreach to book your performers then coordinate a location for you to naturally swing by with your S.O. for the big reveal.

Make a TikTok

If you and your partner love sharing TikToks with each other, make a creative video asking them to marry you in a unique and visual way. This can include a slideshow of moments in your relationship or a clip of you asking them. Send the TikTok link to them and be ready to get down on one knee once they watch it.

Women hugging each other after romantic proposal

Romantic LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas

If you are looking to bring on the romance with your proposal, read ahead for ideas to create an intimate and heartfelt experience for your fiancé-to-be.

Propose at Home

Why not start the next chapter of your lives together in the home you share? In a calm, peaceful moment together, get down on one knee and share why you want your special someone to be a part of your family. Keep this proposal intimate and truly unique to your relationship.

Give Your Heart

Want a grand romantic moment? "Rent a huge heart filled with flowers," advises Velazquez. "Set the heart up on the beach, in a park, or even in your backyard. Propose in front of it and don't forget to add a photographer." Make sure that along with the heart rental, you look into getting fresh flowers for the day in advance so there isn't a last-minute scramble.

Recreate Your First Date

One sweet proposal idea is to retrace the steps of your first date together. Come at it from a sentimental approach to go back to that restaurant where you first met and follow up with the same locations you may have visited on that special day. Find a meaningful spot at the end to surprise your partner with that big question.

Create a Memory Lane

Set up a pathway of photo memories of your relationship for your partner to follow to a beautiful spot where you are waiting with a ring. Call or text them to meet you at the location and make sure they follow the route where they will see the photos. Go to your local photo store or find access to a good printer to create the images along the way.

Include Your Pet

If you and your partner share a furry friend, make them a part of your proposal, too. You can put a sign on your pet that says will you marry me, tie the ring around their collar, or come up with another unique idea to have your little family all together when you get down on one knee.

Involve Your Family

It also can be incredibly meaningful to have your family (whether they're your biological family or the family you created) there for your proposal. After asking your partner to tie the knot, have everyone there hiding to congratulate you and celebrate once they say "yes." Arrange for a small engagement party to take place since you already have your important people there.

Couple hugging in front of "Marry me" sign

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essays Samples >
Essay Types >
Argumentative Essay Example

Gay Marriage Argumentative Essays Samples For Students

33 samples of this type

Do you feel the need to examine some previously written Argumentative Essays on Gay Marriage before you start writing an own piece? In this free collection of Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay examples, you are granted a thrilling opportunity to explore meaningful topics, content structuring techniques, text flow, formatting styles, and other academically acclaimed writing practices. Adopting them while crafting your own Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay will definitely allow you to complete the piece faster.

Presenting superb samples isn't the only way our free essays service can help students in their writing ventures – our experts can also compose from point zero a fully customized Argumentative Essay on Gay Marriage that would make a genuine basis for your own academic work.

Good Argumentative Essay On Same-Sex Marriage

Introduction, sample argumentative essay on legalizing same-sex marriage, same sex marriage argumentative essay examples.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your argumentative essay done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Example Of Same Sex Marriage Arguments Essay

Argumentative essay on should gay marriage be legal, controversial subject with argument (same sex marriage) argumentative essay, argumentative essay on changing tides: same-sex marriage policy and public opinion in the united states, electorate determinants 3 argumentative essay sample.

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Man and Woman, Woman and Woman or Man and Man 4 Procreation or Not 4 Optimum Environment for Children 5 Gay Relationships are Moral or Immoral 5 Federal Law 6 President Obama 7 Politicians and Media Figures 8 Conclusion 10 Work Cited 10

Gay Marriage In America Argumentative Essay Examples

Same-sex marriage is the legal union between people of the same sex. The debate concerning the marriage rights and benefits to gay couples has been intense since early 1970s. In 1996, the then US president Bill Clinton, signed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) into law (Pinello 12). This Act gives a legal definition of Marriage as a legal union between one woman and one man. However, this enactment gave the definition of marriage for federal law purposes only and gave authority to the states to make their own rulings concerning the matter.

Argumentative Essay On Gay Marriage

This thesis aims to highlight the issue of gay marriage that is now being seen in a positive light. It has readily gained acceptance over so many years. People are beginning to see it as an acceptable reality. The roots of its acceptance are also traced through various countries with so many countries beginning to understand how essential it is to allow man with the freedom of anything.

Lessons From Frederick Douglass Argumentative Essay

Same-sex marriage and discrimination, gay marriage movement argumentative essay, adam and eve not adam and steve argumentative essay samples, free why same sex marriage is bad for society argumentative essay sample, gay marriage argument essays: should it be legalized, gay marriage argumentative essays example, good example of argumentative essay on same-sex marriage, legislating through judicial decision-making: the supreme court argumentative essay sample, gay marriage and federal benefits argumentative essays example.

[Client’s Name] [Client’s Professor] [Client’s Subject] [Date Passed]

Should Gay Couples Be Able To Marry Argumentative Essay

Gay marriages argumentative essay example, good argumentative essay on same sex marriage, argumentative essay on should homosexuals be able to marry, letter to the editor on the rights of the gay community argumentative essay example, example of argumentative essay on gay rights in canada, free argumentative essay on gay marriages.

Marriage is a social union between two people, a union that promotes connection. The definition of marriage often varies depending on individual beliefs, cultural values among others. It can be defined as a union where individual relationships such as intimacy and sex are accepted. Marriage is formalized through a wedding either in a law court or in a church. Marriage was naturally supposed to be between people of different sex but in recent times, marriages between people of the same sex have been a normal scenario. Marriage is however not an institution for companionship alone but also for procreation, something gay couples are unable to do.

Legalizing Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay Examples

Liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness argumentative essay examples, argumentative essay on same-sex marriage, good argumentative essay on gay rights in social media, aristotle and gay marriage argumentative essay, judicial activism fosters social change in america argumentative essay sample, example of argumentative essay on john stuart mill.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Should Gay Couples Be Able To Adopt Essay

When people first think of a parents their brain automatically generates the idea of a man and a woman. But why not a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Throughout the years gay couples have been discriminated because of their sexual orientation, causing many bumps in the road while trying to become a happy family. One problem is their ability to adopt. Although all fifty states allow gay adoption, adoption agencies tend to frown upon the decision. Gay couples should be able to adopt because it is a great way for children to get adopted, they are just as good as heterosexual parents, and as long as they meet parent criteria, why shouldn’t they? One reason why gay couples should be able to adopt is because they are just as good as heterosexual parents. In the article (Gay Parents Better Than Straight Parents? What Research Says) a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay parenting was interviewed and said “Gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents.” This proves that gay couples should be able to adopt because the more motivated parents, the better. She also says that they are more stable due to the lack of problems caused in gay …show more content…

In an article titled “Gay Parents Better Than Straight Parents? What Research Says” says that recent studies have shown that gay couples are more likely to adopt special needs children, something adoption agencies lack interest in. The same study included that they are more likely to adopt across races and children older than six, both being categories in which parents don’t necessarily consider. This proves that gay couples should be able to adopt, due to the their open-minded decisions while considering children. As you can see, gay couples should be able to adopt because it is a great way for children to get

Where's The Moral Outrage Analysis

In the article “Where’s the Moral Outrage?” Michael Reagan asks about the “...gay marriage thing”(Reagan par. 1). The article mentions that gay couples that adopt children influences them. “This can be very damaging to adopted children”(Reagan par. 2). Also mentioned was the “...slippery slope leading toward gay marriage”(Reagan par.

Obergefell V. Hodges: Case Study

This analyses that same sex couples should also have the right to marry. One of the reason why the supreme court sided with Loving was because “Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can

Traditional Mother And Father Tom Adkins Analysis

(Lerner). He uses numerous reports, studies, and academic papers in order to provide a scientifically backed argument to why heterosexual parents are

Charles Colson Gay Marriage Analysis

Colson does not mention nor take into account all of the heterosexual couples that leave their child in the car when it’s either freezing or scorching hot out and they die. Nor does Colson mention the number of heterosexual couples who abandon their child in the most despicable ways. It is like the old saying goes, “anyone can be a mother or father, but it takes a real woman or man to be a mommy or daddy”. The number of children in foster care and orphanages is enormous; wouldn’t allowing non-heterosexual couple adopt these children be a

Example Of A Rhetorical Analysis Argument

She basically compared same sex couples and their inability to have children to people who are suffering from medical conditions and not being able to have

Analysis Of Barbara Kingsolver's Essay 'Stone Soup'

In a recent surveys it is shown that over 27% of children in America are being raised by single parents, and over 2 million children are raised by homosexual couples. The old average image of a middle class white family with two parents, and a stable environment is no longer the normal or highly viewed social standing. Various movies, television shows, books, and other forms of literature depict families of different background and standings. For example, in the popular television show Modern Family depicts two gay men raising their adopted daughter and a blended family, the people on the show are always caring for and show constant love for their children. Even though they are not under normal circumstances the children of these different families are growing up in a loving and stable environment.

Comparing The Foster Care System And Homosexuals

I) Introduction – The Foster Care system and Homosexual’s being able to adopt both show through research to provide many benefits to a child in need. Although neither seems to be the best option, people seem to have rooted for one more than the other due to sexual orientation, but what for? Doesn’t both foster care and homosexual adoption provide love and care for children or is one more suitable for children than the other? Through personal research it seems as if Homosexual’s adopting children is just as good as a child remaining in the Foster Care system (Claim). II)

Argumentative Essay On Transracial Adoption

Transracial adoption (TRA) occurs when the parents and their adopted child are of different races. TRA has been a controversial issue as it is said to affect the child’s racial identity formation and development. Most TRA studies are done in the United States of America (USA) where there is an increasing trend of TRAs. The demand by Caucasian couples for babies is increasing but the babies available for adoption mainly come from African-American or Asian families. In the USA, from 1999 to 2013, the total number children adopted from China and South Korea is 91,002, comprising roughly 36% of the adoptions (Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. State Department, 2013).

Argumentative Essay On Conversion Therapy

Conversion Therapy Although many people have strong convictions against gay people, sometimes leading parents to attempt to change their children’s sexual orientation, it should be banned on a national level for parents to be able to force their children under the age of 18 into conversion therapy because it is unconstitutional, it evidently damages the child's wellbeing, and the methods have never even been proven by credible research. Members of the ex-gay (anti-LGBT) movement argue that banning reparative therapy is an infringement on the rights to freedom of speech and religion, while parents following this movement have similar feelings and believe that putting their child through conversion therapy will help them be ridded of an "unwanted

Persuasive Essay On Gay Adoption

Homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted and integrated into today’s society, however, when it comes to homosexuals establishing families, a problem is posed. In most states, homosexuals can adopt children like any other married or single adult. There are many arguments to this controversial topic; some people believe that it should be legal nationally, while others would prefer that is was banned everywhere, or at least in their individual states. There are logical reasons to allow gays to adopt children, but for some, these reasons are not enough. The main issue really is, what is in the best interest of the child?

Although gay or homo parental adoption remains controversial for many people, it cannot be denied that it is a great option for children who are homeless or in a state of abandonment to have a better quality of life. It is a matter that although it has already been approved and legislated in 21 countries, most of them European, in Latin America is not completely accepted, especially for those who are heavily influenced by religions. Only 4 Latin American countries have accepted gay adoption, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico and Colombia. Nowadays many families with homosexual parents raise their children without any problem; regardless if they are either adopted or conceived by some method of fertilization.

Same Sex Adoption Persuasive Essay

According to Childwelfare.gov “Adoption is the social, emotional, and legal process in which children who will not be raised by their birth parents become full and permanent legal members of another family.” Although adoption is a great thing that gives many children homes, there is many different options. The different options of adoption is same sex adoption, closed adoption, and same sex adoption. There

Argumentative Essay On Single Parent Adoption

Single parent adoption In today's society, one of the strongest controversy in the world today is over whether or not single parents should be allowed to adopt. Some believe it is socially acceptable for a single parent to adopt a child and that “single prospective adopters of both genders can have much to offer to an adopted child” (The Telegraph Tim Ross), others think that singles should not be able to adopt. In some eyes they see that a child needs two parents so a child can grow up having a mother and father figure to look up to, and by having two parents, one can fill in the other part when one is sick or tired or so on.

The Pros And Cons Of Gay Adoption

Homosexual adoption has become a rising controversy for the last decade. This has caused many affect on families and children's. In many cases, adoption for gays and lesbians are allowed but only to a homosexual individual. In 1976, American Psychological Association declared that adoption organization shouldn’t consider the sexual orientation of the foster parent for the custody of a child. In the past years, gay marriage became legal in many of the states and historically, gay adoption has been beneficial to society, but hasn’t been made legal in almost every state (Adoption Timeline.)

Argument Essay: Equality For The LGBT Community

EQUALITY FOR LESBIAN, GAY, 3 Equality for LGBT Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, and queer community needs equality because they are humans, they need love and care, and they should be respected by everyone. This community is also known as LGBT or LGBTQ community. LGBTQ community is a group of people who are lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender, and queer. This group of people is also known as homosexuals. This people experienced harassment, discrimination, and threat of violence because of their sexual orientation.

More about Should Gay Couples Be Able To Adopt Essay

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Age of the Open Letter Should End

“Please stop it,” handwritten in all capital letters.

By Roxane Gay

Contributing Opinion Writer

Once upon a time, it is often suggested, people with starkly different viewpoints were able to convene and compromise and find hallowed common ground. This all happened in a “better time,” one invoked in fraught political discussions in which the discourse is not happening in exactly the way the invoker prefers. If only we could get back to that place, we could solve all our problems. We could overcome our differences. We could create lasting change.

It’s easy to look upon the past with rose-colored glasses, to assume that whatever compromises people were once able to make came easily to well-mannered gentlemen and perhaps a few gentlewomen engaged in debates. Our assumption that the past was more civil is such a beautiful lie, one that serves only the people so desperately willing to believe it.

Open letters are not new; they have served as rhetorical tools for at least two centuries, from Émile Zola’s “J’accuse” to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” As a means of personal empowerment, they allow people to use their voices, to advocate causes for which they hold affinity, to bring attention to important social issues, to express outrage, to defend decisions, to chastise ignorance, to affirm humanity. Open letters are persuasive arguments, but they are also entreaties. Please, hear me, the writers of open letters implore. Please act. Please change. Please.

I am not a fan of open letters, though I recognize their value. I’ve signed a few over the years because doing so felt urgent and necessary. But once the letter was released, I felt a little lost and had no idea where to put the energy of the letter and its pleas. The open letter, as a genre is, in this way, far too limited. We speak with conviction, and then what?

We need not have solutions to every issue we bring attention to, but the constant volley of open letters does not really address the problems with which they are concerned. In some cases, these letters only encourage audiences to become even more attached to their convictions. If, in the best case, an open letter really influences people to change their minds, where do they go with their newfound perspectives? If an open letter offers practical steps forward, how does it create space for what happens after we vote or bring awareness about an issue to our social circles?

In 1962, James Baldwin wrote a searing letter in which he grappled with the fraught, racist future into which his nephew would come of age. Mr. Baldwin wrote, “You were born where you were born and faced the future that you faced because you were black and for no other reason. The limits to your ambition were thus expected to be settled. You were born into a society which spelled out with brutal clarity and in as many ways as possible that you were a worthless human being. You were not expected to aspire to excellence. You were expected to make peace with mediocrity.”

This was a message for his nephew, but it was also for any Black person or other person of color trying to reconcile the realities of racism. And it was a reckoning for a white audience about the ways bigotry seeks to limit the Black imagination. That’s the beauty of open letters: There is your intended audience and then all the ancillary audiences to which you have access, by virtue of the open message.

But open letters are not always as profound or noble or edifying. At their worst, they are thinly veiled opportunities for the writer(s) to air grievances to like-minded individuals or share unfiltered, unrefined opinions of little substance. They purport to reach a specific audience for a specific reason, but really, these letters are often undisciplined monologues. The writers are preachers, standing at powerful pulpits, all call and little interest in response.

Before the rise of the internet, open letters could have a significant impact because most people had few avenues for expressing their ideas to a large audience. But now, when we send a tweet or post an image on Instagram or make a TikTok, we are, in a sense, sharing a tiny open letter. Please, we say, please hear me. Please see me.

I cannot nor would not dare try to adjudicate a decades-long conflict no person or entity has ever been able to resolve. But over the past several months, I have been struck by the sheer number of open letters various individuals and groups have written in support of Israel, in support of the Palestinians, in support of war, against war, demanding cease-fire, rejecting cease-fire and on and on.

Instead of having conversations, many people have taken to talking at their intended audiences, composing arguments as unimpeachably as possible and trusting that little more needs to be said. Or, because someone else has done the work of crafting an argument, people co-sign a letter’s sentiments without having to expend unnecessary effort or original thought — all reward, little risk.

We are six months past Oct. 7 and the brutal Hamas incursions into Israel. Hamas is still holding more than 100 hostages. At least 33,000 Palestinians, according to the local Health Ministry, have been killed by Israeli military attacks. There is no end in sight to the hostilities. A great many of us are feeling helpless in the face of such an intractable conflict. We want to say and do the right thing without necessarily knowing what that looks like. Open letters have allowed us to scream into the void, innumerable calls begging for some kind of response that might bring an end to so much suffering.

Open letters about Gaza are not a recent phenomenon. In 2014, physicians and scientists wrote a letter for the people of Gaza, denouncing Israeli aggression. In December 2023, Doctors Without Borders and other humanitarian groups wrote an open letter to the U.S. secretary of defense, Lloyd J. Austin, sharing concerns about the civilian casualties of war and requesting that the United States take steps to protect civilians in Gaza. Jewish elected officials in New York wrote a letter, articulating the effects the war has had on their constituents and urging the Israeli government to find a peaceful resolution and protect Palestinians from settler violence. Museum employees and volunteers at the Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote an open letter encouraging the museum to call for an end to the bombing in Gaza and showcase more Palestinian artwork. Workers at several other museums took similar stands. American political appointees wrote an open letter decrying President Biden’s stance on Israel.

These open letters are not solely an American endeavor. More than 60 nongovernmental agencies in Britain wrote an open letter to members of Parliament about the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and requesting support for a cease-fire motion. Journalists from around the world have written open letters in support of Palestinian journalists and demanding better access to Gaza to report on the destruction and demanding that media outlets more effectively and accurately report on the brutal realities of the war.

In Hollywood there has been a slew of open letters. In one such letter, released days after Oct. 7, actors and entertainment industry executives wrote passionately in defense of Israel, condemned Hamas and demanded the release of the Israeli hostages. In another, actors and artists wrote an open letter to Mr. Biden, calling for a cease-fire. Poets and writers have written open letters, and so have university faculty, lawyers, artists and art workers, philanthropists, college students, researchers, congressional staff members, philosophers and even Holocaust survivors .

Each open letter, no matter what stance it adopts, is earnest, incisive and unequivocal. All the writers and co-signers believe they are right and know the best way forward. As the war continues, so does this chorus of open letters. They are coalescing into a historical record of how people are responding to one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our lifetimes. We need this record, but we also need so much more.

As with the conflict itself, there is, seemingly, little common ground beyond a collective desire to speak and be heard and remain confident in one’s correctitude. This reveals one of the biggest weaknesses of the open letter. We know what the writers of these letters think and feel. We know what they want. But we don’t really know if anyone is listening. We don’t know how to translate those words into meaningful action. We don’t know what could happen if, instead of talking at one another by way of open letters, we found better ways to talk with and listen, truly listen, to one another — to participate in both the call and the response.

Change is difficult. It is incremental. Sometimes, compromise and progress demand sacrifice. Rarely do all people get everything they want. And, I suspect, that’s why we keep turning to open letters. They may not lead to workable solutions, but they do allow us to speak. They won’t provide food and medical care to the people of Gaza, and they won’t bring the hostages home or bring about a cease-fire, but we can articulate what we want without having to engage in the messy and unsatisfying but necessary work of compromise. We can hold fast to our deeply held beliefs without having to question them or grapple with doubt. We can mitigate any helplessness with performance rather than practice.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Roxane Gay is the author, most recently, of “Opinions: A Decade of Arguments, Criticism, and Minding Other People’s Business” and a contributing Opinion writer. Write to her at [email protected] . @ RGay

Gay couple who own pro sports team will have a trans-pride-flag kit – ‘We become louder!’

Rugby club Keighley Cougars in England repeatedly makes LGBTQ sports history. Co-owner Kaue Garcia says they want to "shock the world."

When Kaue Garcia left Brazil 14 years ago to go traveling, he could never have imagined his journey would take him to a sports team in a West Yorkshire market town, in the north of England.

But it’s not just the destination of Keighley Cougars — a rugby league club with a history going back nearly 150 years — that is so unexpected. It’s also what Garcia is helping to achieve there as a champion for equality.

Cougar Park doesn’t just welcome LGBTQ people. The team’s stadium and those who call it home truly celebrate the community, from the permanent Pride rainbow-colored terrace to a series of headline-grabbing activations — the latest of which has just been announced.

The Cougars have appointed broadcaster India Willoughby — Britain’s first TV newsreader who is transgender — as a club patron, making her the first trans person to hold such a role.

Get off the sidelines and into the game Our weekly playbook is packed with everything from locker room chatter to pressing LGBTQ sports issues. Weekender * Weekly Newsletter * Promotions and Partner Emails * Sign Up

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Keighley Cougars RLFC (@keighleycougarsrlfc)

In addition, the team will wear a special kit in the colors of the trans flag for Keighley’s annual Pride game on July 7. It’s part of a season-long commitment to advocating for trans rights, amid an increasingly toxic “culture wars” battle playing out across the UK.

“We say that with visibility comes understanding,” Garcia tells Outsports. “People often come with a perception or a misconception.

“They need contact, getting to know someone, making those experiences, knowing people — it changes minds. I think that’s so powerful.

“That’s why India is representing, to open up dialogue so that people actually start looking at it differently, by educating themselves.”

‘We have to outdo ourselves’

Getting into sports ownership has certainly been an education for Garcia. He was in his early 20s when his trip overseas took him to Thailand. It was there that he met Ryan O’Neill, taking time out from a business trip.

O’Neill’s father Mick had previously been at the helm of Keighley, during the club’s “Cougarmania” glory days in the 1990s when thousands of townsfolk regularly turned out at home games.

Kaue and Ryan fell in love, got married, and returned to the UK to live in London. When the Cougars fell on hard times, Mick rode to the rescue in early 2019 as leader of a consortium buy-out — with his son and son-in-law part of the ownership team.

They became Europe’s first out gay owners of a pro sports club (and no others are yet known). Having been made to feel welcome by Cougars fans, they staged a Pride game during their first summer as directors — the first of its kind at a pro club in either rugby league or union — and found the party atmosphere went down rather well with locals.

Former Super League star Keegan Hirst , who came out publicly as gay in 2015, was the guest of honour.

There was no rugby played in June 2020, but the Pride game returned in 2021, and then again in 2022, putting extra numbers on the gate each time.

Last year saw the unveiling of the ‘Pride Terrace’ and there was also a recent match in February designated to the UK’s LGBTQ History Month, when nearly 4,000 fans turned out for a derby against Bradford Bulls.

2 out 2 for the Cougars. ✔️ @Cougarmania all the way. 🏳️‍🌈🏉🏳️‍⚧️ #rugby #inclusivityinsports pic.twitter.com/3pZ324rUuj — Kaue Garcia (@itskauegarcia) March 26, 2024

“When we first incorporated the Pride fixture, people were skeptical. Fast forward five years, and everybody has embraced it,” explains Garcia.

“There is now this natural expectation — because we have done so much, every year we have to outdo ourselves. We have to shock the world and give something so that it becomes relevant again. It’s the process of educating.”

On occasions, they come up against vocal opposition, much of it online, which can be exacerbated by the team’s results. Last season was a struggle and ended in the disappointment of relegation.

But the two co-owners will not compromise when it comes to equality.

Garcia is appalled by increasingly “toxic” attitudes around trans rights, with the issue recently ratcheted up again due to the publication of the Cass Review examining NHS England services for young people questioning their gender identity. Several prominent figures in the media and on social media have been staunch in their criticism of trans-inclusive healthcare.

Willoughby, defending her trans community, often finds herself on the frontline. She was among those invited to the Cougars game in February by O’Neill and Garcia in a spirit of LGBTQ solidarity. A huge “Trans Rights are Human Rights” flag was also on display.

Since then, the trio have kept talking, resulting in her patron appointment last week.

Garcia says the false narratives being perpetuated about trans people are “horrendous” and that nominating Willougby for an honorary role is a way to create greater respect and counter confusion. He is more than happy to talk it through with supporters.

“The fans have an open communication with me and Ryan, and they contacted us privately. They support what we have done at the club — they just didn’t understand why we made this nomination.

“We explained the reasons and now they understand.”

Garcia recommended they talk with Willoughby too. “She loves the club and she’s going to be coming to the games a lot — just give her a chance and you’ll see that we have a lot more similarities than differences. We are all just human beings, trying to to live our lives.”

There will always be a few dissenters but it’s hard to question the commitment level from himself, O’Neill and the rest of the leadership team. “Every year, it gets easier because we become louder. People will embrace it. I think that’s the mission, really.”

‘A player came out as bi to us’

Meanwhile, new plans have just been approved for a stadium redevelopment while on the field, the target is promotion.

Having won all 20 of their fixtures in 2022, Keighley were promoted to the second tier — but they were narrowly consigned to the drop a year later. The current campaign has started perfectly, however, with four wins in four matches.

Rugby league always comes first, but causes are important too. And it’s not just LGBTQ rights — the Cougars have won praise for raising awareness around men’s mental health; they’ve helped raise money for local charity Day One Trauma Support ; and even the local Conservative MP has praised the club as “a cornerstone” of the community

Because of Garcia and O’Neill, Pride is now firmly woven into the fabric of Keighley — the team’s regular home and away kits have Progress flags sewn into every shirt.

As for the future, they would like to see more LGBTQ inclusion activations at other rugby league clubs and one anecdote from Garcia demonstrates the need.

“We spoke to our players about how words impact on people. There is banter in the locker room — language that is perhaps being used as a joke.

“But someone might be struggling. You might have someone that is still in the closet so we said, just be very careful with your words.

“We did have a player that then came out as being bisexual to us. He came to me and Ryan first and said he was going to tell the rest of the boys.

“And when he did, they said it was no big deal.

“Teams are a funny thing because they are like a family — they are brothers and they fight for each other. They have each other’s backs and in rugby, it’s quite beautiful to see that.”

More Like This

Jakub Jankto says he won’t play at Euro 2024, but organizers are courting gay fans

Mexico fans again demeaned US athletes on American soil with their anti-gay chant

Manchester United celebrate their LGBTQ fans as club wins Football v Homophobia Award

Score weekly updates Your go-to newsletter for LGBTQ sports scoops and major plays. Weekender * Weekly Newsletter * Promotions and Partner Emails * Sign Up

More in fans

Jakub Jankto featured for the Czech Republic at the last European Championship, but he won't be at UEFA Euro 2024.

Many Mexico fans refuse to stop using an anti-gay slur in their chants against Team USA and goalie Matt Turner.

Eric Najib, founder of Rainbow Devils and manager of the world’s most successful LGBTQ football club, Stonewall FC, was also shortlisted for an FvH Award.

At this gay bar for the Super Bowl, they will be rooting against Taylor Swift

Super Bowl LVIII will be the third 49ers Super Bowl party at Hi Tops since its opening. This time, they’re hoping to celebrate a Niners championship.

Barcelona warn fans over Saudi Arabia’s anti-gay laws ahead of Supercopa

The Spanish club included a warning about ‘severe penalties’ for same-sex relations, and pro-LGBTQ social media posts, to fans going to Riyadh.

Premier League club warns fans over homophobic chanting as manager sends video message

Luton Town boss Rob Edwards addressed supporters directly ahead of Saturday’s visit of Chelsea, with the Hatters having already been fined this season.

Latest Articles on Outsports

Landon Driggers is a gay nonbinary Tennessee swimmer training for a spot on Team USA for the Paris Summer Olympics

Landon Driggers is an all-American swimmer at the University of Tennessee who is now training for the Team USA Olympic Trials.

Out tag team The Backslide Girlz slide their way into pro wrestling history with championship win

Out pro wrestlers Kingsley and Shay Kassidy, known together as The Backslide Girlz, became the first women's tag team champions in Australian pro wrestling history Friday.

Retired Yankee broadcaster John Sterling brought baseball and Broadway together for over three decades

Fans of showtunes and hardball had an unlikely ally in the Yankee announcer. Plus: Padres Pride, Anthony Bowens talks smack, and Thirst Trap of the Week.

Time 100 includes only one LGBTQ athlete, no one under ‘leaders’ or ‘innovators’ categories

The Time 100 this year includes one LGBTQ athlete, a deserving Jenni Hermoso, who won the World Cup and stood up for women everywhere.

Carl Nassib, NFL’s first out gay player, to announce Cleveland Browns draft pick

Nassib will team up with Peggy Rajski from The Trevor Project to announce Cleveland's second round pick.

Aaron Rodgers says AIDS was created by the U.S. government in the 1980s

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers offers a bizarre conspiracy theory about AIDS and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Federal appeals court overturns West Virginia trans athlete ban – next stop, the Supreme Court

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rules the "Save Women's Sports Act" violates Title IX and trans athletes are protected by the law.

Nonbinary runners at Boston Marathon filled with joy by being able to compete authentically

In its second year of having a nonbinary division, 48 runners participated. 'What. a. day.' said one.

Rob Gronkowski’s individualism, and yes, that first pitch, can inspire gay athletes and LGBTQ people

So many LGBTQ people feel the pressure to conform to society's expectations. People like Gronk give permission to be yourself.

Natasha Cloud lives out ‘dream of mine’ at Philadelphia 76ers Pride Night

Natasha Cloud returned to her hometown of Philadelphia to take part in the 76ers Pride Night and did something she'd seen for years.

This bouncing Brazilian gymnast is big on TikTok, out as bi and off to the Olympics

Trampoline gymnast Rayan Dutra is heading to his first Olympic Games this summer. He tells Outsports he'll be proud to represent his country and Team LGBTQ.

Brittney Griner and wife expecting a baby, teams already posturing for 2046 WNBA Draft

Brittney Griner and her wife, Cherelle, announced their big news on Instagram. Could the baby come early, for Pride Month?

Privacy Overview

Election 2024
Entertainment
Newsletters
Photography
Personal Finance
AP Investigations
AP Buyline Personal Finance
AP Buyline Shopping
Press Releases
Israel-Hamas War
Russia-Ukraine War
Global elections
Asia Pacific
Latin America
Middle East
Election Results
Delegate Tracker
AP & Elections
March Madness
AP Top 25 Poll
Movie reviews
Book reviews
Personal finance
Financial Markets
Business Highlights
Financial wellness
Artificial Intelligence
Social Media

Trump lawyers say Stormy Daniels refused subpoena outside a Brooklyn bar, papers left ‘at her feet’

Jury selection in Donald Trump’s hush money trial has encountered new setbacks as two seated jurors were excused. Attorneys now need to pick 13 more jurors to serve on the panel.(AP Video: David R. Martin)

FILE - Stormy Daniels appears at an event, May 23, 2018, in West Hollywood, Calif. The hush money trial of former President Donald Trump begins Monday, April 15, 2024, with jury selection. It’s the first criminal trial of a former U.S. commander-in-chief. The charges in the trial center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen. He paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File)

Copy Link copied

Former President Donald Trump approaches to speak to reporters as he leaves a Manhattan courtroom after the second day of his criminal trial, Tuesday, April 16, 2024 in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, Pool)

The latest: Get live updates from Donald Trump’s hush money trial

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s legal team says it tried serving Stormy Daniels a subpoena as she arrived for an event at a bar in Brooklyn last month, but the porn actor, who is expected to be a witness at the former president’s criminal trial , refused to take it and walked away.

A process server working for Trump’s lawyers said he approached Daniels with papers demanding information related to a documentary recently released about her life and involvement with Trump, but was forced to “leave them at her feet,” according to a court filing made public Wednesday.

“I stated she was served as I identified her and explained to her what the documents were,” process server Dominic DellaPorte wrote. “She did not acknowledge me and kept walking inside the venue, and she had no expression on her face.”

The encounter, prior to a screening of the “Stormy” film at the 3 Dollar Bill nightclub, has touched off a monthlong battle between Trump’s lawyers and Daniels’ attorney that continued this week as the presumptive Republican nominee’s criminal trial began in Manhattan.

Trump’s lawyers are asking Judge Juan M. Merchan to force Daniels to comply with the subpoena. In their filing, they included a photo they said DellaPorte took of Daniels as she strode away.

Daniels’ lawyer Clark Brewster claims they never received the paperwork. He described the requests as an “unwarranted fishing expedition” with no relevance to Trump’s criminal trial.

Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan visits the Bridge Boat Show in Stevensville, Md., Friday, April 12, 2024, as he campaigns for the U.S. Senate. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

“The process — instituted on the eve of trial — appears calculated to cause harassment and/or intimidation of a lay witness,” Brewster wrote in an April 9 letter to Merchan. Brewster didn’t immediately reply to a message from The Associated Press seeking comment.

The hush money case is the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to go to trial. Seven jurors have been seated so far. Jury selection is set to resume Thursday.

Daniels is expected to testify about a $130,000 payment she got in 2016 from one of Trump’s lawyers at the time, Michael Cohen, in order to stop her from speaking publicly about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump years earlier.

Cohen was later reimbursed by Trump’s company for that payment. Trump is accused of falsifying his company’s records to hide the nature of that payment, and other work he did to bury negative stories during the 2016 campaign.

Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He denies having a sexual encounter with Daniels. His lawyers argue the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses, and were recorded correctly.

In a separate filing made public Wednesday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said that if Trump chooses to testify at the trial, prosecutors plan to challenge his credibility by questioning him about his recent legal setbacks. The filing was made last month under seal.

Trump was recently ordered to pay a $454 million civil penalty following a trial in which a judge ruled he had lied about his wealth on financial statements. In another trial, a jury said he was liable for $83.3 million for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault.

Merchan said he plans to hold a hearing Friday to decide whether that will be allowed.

Under New York law, prosecutors can question witnesses about past legal matters in certain circumstances. Trump’s lawyers are opposed. Trump has said he wants to testify, but he is not required to and can always change his mind.

As for the subpoena dispute, it marks the latest attempt by Trump’s lawyers to knock loose potentially damaging information about Daniels, a key prosecution witness.

They are demanding an array of documents related to the promotion and editing of the documentary, “Stormy,” which explores Daniels’ career in the adult film industry and rise to celebrity since her alleged involvement with Trump became publicly known.

They are also requesting Daniels reveal how much, if anything, she was compensated for the film.

Trump’s lawyers contend the film’s premiere last month on NBC’s Peacock streaming service — a week before the trial was originally scheduled to start — stoked negative publicity about Trump, muddying his ability to get a fair trial.

In the filings made public Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys accuse Daniels of “plainly seeking to promote her brand and make money based on her status as a witness.”

The subpoena also demands communications between Daniels and other likely witnesses in the trial, including Cohen and Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who alleges she had an affair with Trump. It also requests any communications between Daniels and Carroll.

Earlier this month, Merchan blocked an attempt by Trump to subpoena NBC Universal for information related to the documentary. He wrote that subpoena and the demands therein “are the very definition of a fishing expedition.”

Trump lawyers say Stormy Daniels refused subpoena outside a Brooklyn bar, papers left ‘at her feet’

Former president Donald Trump approaches to speak to reporters as he leaves a Manhattan courtroom after the second day of his criminal trial, April 16, in New York.

A process server working for Trump's lawyers said he approached Daniels with papers demanding information related to a documentary recently released about her life and involvement with Trump, but was forced to “leave them at her feet," according to a court filing made public Wednesday.

The encounter, prior to a screening of the “Stormy” film at the 3 Dollar Bill nightclub, has touched off a monthlong battle between Trump’s lawyers and Daniels' attorney that continued this week as the presumptive Republican nominee's criminal trial began in Manhattan.

Trump's lawyers are asking Judge Juan M. Merchan to force Daniels to comply with the subpoena. In their filing, they included a photo they said DellaPorte took of Daniels as she strode away.

Daniels' lawyer Clark Brewster claims they never received the paperwork. He described the requests as an “unwarranted fishing expedition” with no relevance to Trump's criminal trial.

“The process — instituted on the eve of trial — appears calculated to cause harassment and/or intimidation of a lay witness,” Brewster wrote in an April 9 letter to Merchan. Brewster didn't immediately reply to a message from The Associated Press seeking comment.

The hush money case is the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to go to trial. Seven jurors have been seated so far. Jury selection is set to resume Thursday.

Daniels is expected to testify about a $130,000 payment she got in 2016 from one of Trump's lawyers at the time, Michael Cohen, in order to stop her from speaking publicly about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump years earlier.

Cohen was later reimbursed by Trump's company for that payment. Trump is accused of falsifying his company’s records to hide the nature of that payment, and other work he did to bury negative stories during the 2016 campaign.

In a separate filing made public Wednesday, the Manhattan district attorney's office said that if Trump chooses to testify at the trial, prosecutors plan to challenge his credibility by questioning him about his recent legal setbacks. The filing was made last month under seal.

Merchan said he plans to hold a hearing Friday to decide whether that will be allowed.

Under New York law, prosecutors can question witnesses about past legal matters in certain circumstances. Trump's lawyers are opposed. Trump has said he wants to testify, but he is not required to and can always change his mind.

As for the subpoena dispute, it marks the latest attempt by Trump’s lawyers to knock loose potentially damaging information about Daniels, a key prosecution witness.

They are also requesting Daniels reveal how much, if anything, she was compensated for the film.

In the filings made public Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys accuse Daniels of “plainly seeking to promote her brand and make money based on her status as a witness."

IMAGES

Essay Gay Marriage
Should gay couples be Able to marry Essay Example
Lesbians and gay men have always existed in every historical period
Reflective Paper on Gay Marriage Free Essay Example
Legalizing Gay Marriages In Indiana Essay Examples
Argument Paper on Gay Marriage Essay Example

VIDEO

Queerbaiting the Movie
Gay Couples Amazing and Romantic Moments
𝐒𝐚𝐦𝐞-𝐒𝐞𝐱 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐞 & 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞
The Truth About Gay Love
When Gay Couples Chat with @DustinRhobert 😈
Understanding the Difficulties in Gay Relationships

COMMENTS

The Complex Issue of Gay Marriage: [Essay Example], 537 words
Conclusion. In conclusion, the issue of gay marriage is complex and ongoing. While arguments supporting gay marriage focus on equality and human rights, arguments against it focus on traditional marriage and family values and religious freedom. Counterarguments and refutations show that objections to gay marriage are often based on unfounded ...
Same-sex marriage: What you need to know
Like heterosexuals, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships and many of them do. In fact, researchers have found that the majority of lesbian, and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together 10 or more years.. Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same ...
Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing
The new survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17, 2013 among 1,501 adults nationwide, confirms that these figures have crossed, with 49% supporting same-sex marriage, and 44% opposed. The new survey finds 70% of "Millennials" - born since 1980 and age 18-32 today - in favor of same-sex marriage.
5 facts about same-sex marriage
1 The share of Americans who favor same sex-marriage grew steadily for most of the last decade, but public support has leveled off in the last few years. Around four-in-ten U.S. adults (37%) favored allowing gays and lesbians to wed in 2009, a share that rose to 62% in 2017. But views are largely unchanged over the last few years.
Couple-level Minority Stress: An Examination of Same-sex Couples
Minority Stress and Same-sex Couples. Political and legal debates over same-sex marriage have cast a spotlight on same-sex relationships and sexual minority health (e.g., Badgett 2009; Herdt and Kertzner 2006; King and Bartlett 2006; Kurdek 2004; LeBlanc, Frost, and Wight 2015; Patterson 2000; Peplau and Fingerhut 2007).Research suggests that recent state-level bans on same-sex marriage were ...
Gay Marriage Is Good for America
Gay Marriage Is Good for America. By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week. The first to be wed in San Francisco were Del Martin and ...
Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality
For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their ...
Two Decades of LGBTQ Relationships Research
The Journal of Social and Personal Relationships had a somewhat higher inclusion rate over time, with roughly 3.5% of articles in 2002-2006 being LGBTQ-relevant, peaking at nearly 6% between 2007 ...
An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ignited a nationwide debate in late 2003 when it ruled that the state must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Almost overnight, same-sex marriage became a major national issue, pitting religious and social conservatives ...
Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage Essay (Critical Writing)
Same sex unions are becoming popular in many countries and they are quite prevalent in European countries as compared to other places. Same sex marriage is commonly known as gay marriage. "It refers to a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender" (Goldberg, 2010).
Couple Therapy with Same-Sex and Gender-Variant (LGBT) Couples
However, lesbian, gay, and bisexual couples and couples with one or both transgender partners (LGBT couples) exist in a stigmatizing environment that provides no social structures for them. As a result, these couples face three types of challenges: minority stress, lack of social support, and role and relational ambiguity. ...
The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage
The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay. Exclusively available on IvyPanda. Updated: Dec 25th, 2023. Relationships between sexes have been traditionally streamlined into the heterosexual standards of behavior. Marriage, as a union of two people before the law and the church, is mostly perceived as such comprising representatives ...
Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness Research Paper
Introduction. All people have biases; self-awareness is the key to understanding how these biases affect the delivery of health care to individuals, families, and populations. Several jurisdictions in the United States have legalized same-sex marriages. On the 13th of August, 2013, 13 states had legalized same-sex marriages.
Essay about Gay Couples Should Have the Same Rights as ...
Essay on Gay Marriage. Same-sex marriage and straight marriage do not have the same rights. Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. If same-sex couples enter a civil union they are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided federal law to married couples. Being denied to all these rights they ...
The Baker, the Gay Couple and the Wedding Cake
Dec. 9, 2017. Share full article. A 2012 protest over a Colorado baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Kathryn Scott Osler/The Denver Post, via Getty Images. To the Editor: Re ...
Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma
The ethical dilemma that arises from this issue can be resolved differently depending on the ethical theory applied to it. The paper at hand is going to analyze gay marriage from the perspectives of different theories and juxtapose the opponents' arguments, using elements of thought and intellectual standards. We'll create an entirely ...
Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay
Paragraph 1: Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and ...
Avoiding heterosexual bias in language
The Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns (CLGC) has considered issues of heterosexual bias in language since it was founded in 1980. A first draft of the "CLGC Nomenclature Guidelines for Psychologists" was approved at the September 1985 meeting. Comments were solicited from the American Psychological Associations (APA's) Division 44 and from ...
Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research
The American Sociological Association (ASA) filed an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court outlining social science research findings on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families on February 28, 2013 (Brief for the American Sociological Association 2013).Sociological research was used in a number of cases reaching the Supreme Court, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA ...
15 Romantic And Creative LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas
Do a Double Proposal. To create a more equal balance in their relationship, many LGBTQIA+ couples like to do a double proposal. This occurs when each member of the couple proposes to each other either at the same time or at different dates. "It really isn't too different," Velasquez shares of the planning of this proposal idea.
Gay Marriage Argumentative Essays Samples For Students
Slavery, the vote for women, and equal rights for blacks are just a few examples of civil rights issues that citizens fought for and won. One of the big battles being fought state by state today is the conflict over same-sex marriage. While some states have made same-sex marriage legal, other states have outlawed it.
Should Gay Couples Be Able To Adopt Essay
What Research Says) a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay parenting was interviewed and said "Gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents.". This proves that gay couples should be able to adopt because the more motivated parents, the better.
These Gay Novels Offer a 'More Interesting Conversation' About Faith
Faith has never been too far from gay literature. There is a rich history of queer theology that seeks to reconcile sexuality and religion, like the theologian John J. McNeil's "The Church and ...
NPR responds after editor says it has 'lost America's trust' : NPR
Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in ...
Opinion
Roxane Gay is the author, most recently, of "Opinions: A Decade of Arguments, Criticism, and Minding Other People's Business" and a contributing Opinion writer. Write to her at workfriend ...
Gay couple owns pro team Keighley Cougars, to have trans flag kit
Gay couple who own pro sports team will have a trans-pride-flag kit - 'We become louder!' ... Former Super League star Keegan Hirst, who came out publicly as gay in 2015, was the guest of ...
Hush money trial: Trump's lawyers say Stormy Daniels refused subpoena
Donald Trump's legal team says it tried serving a subpoena on Stormy Daniels as she arrived for a screening of her documentary at a gay bar in Brooklyn last month, but the porn actor and hush money trial figure refused to take it and walked away.
Trump lawyers say Stormy Daniels refused subpoena outside a Brooklyn
Donald Trump's legal team says it tried serving a subpoena on Stormy Daniels as she arrived for a screening of her documentary at a gay bar in Brooklyn last month, but the porn actor and hush ...

The Complex Issue of Gay Marriage

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Gay Marriage

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Gay Marriage Is Good for America

Two Decades of LGBTQ Relationships Research

What Is the State of LGBTQ Inclusion in Relationships Research Today?

Has LGBTQ Inclusion Increased Over Time?

Additional Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion

LGBTQ+ Specific Journals

Regions & Countries

An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

The Debate Begins

The Goodridge Case and its Aftermath

Find More Resources on Gay Marriage at pewresearch.org/pewresearch-org/religion

Sign up for The Briefing

8 in 10 Americans Say Religion Is Losing Influence in Public Life

Research Topics

17 Couple Therapy with Same-Sex and Gender-Variant (LGBT) Couples: Sociocultural Problems and Intrapsychic and Relational Consequences

Minority Stress

The Impact of Minority Stress on Couples

Interventions to Work With Minority Stress

Externalizing the problem.

Unpacking the history of minority stress.

Reducing internalized negative beliefs.

Establishing positive associations.

The Establishment of Social Support

Support From Family of Origin

Families of Choice

Support From the LGBT Community

Same-Sex Marriage as Social Support

Interventions to Work With Establishment of Social Support

Building families of choice, differentiating within families of origin.

Establishing a sense of community.

Navigating “the marriage question”.

Role and Relational Ambiguity

Ambiguous Boundaries

Ambiguous Commitment

Marriage as an ambiguous option.

Ambiguous commitment and ambiguous termination.

Division of Tasks, Power, and Roles

Challenges of traditional roles.

Role and relational ambiguity in parenting.

Techniques to Address Relational and Role Ambiguity

From Sociocultural Problem to Intrapsychic and Relational Consequences: A Framework for Psychological Understanding and Intervention

Fundamental Tenets of Self-psychology

The three functions.

Applying a Self-psychology Framework to LGBT Couples

The idealizing function in therapy with LGBT couples.

The twinship function in therapy with LGBT couples.

Seven Premises About Work With Same-Sex and Gender-Variant Couples

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness Research Paper

Essay about Gay Couples Should Have the Same Rights as Married Couples

Essay about The Case for Gay Marriage

Individual Rights Advocate Analysis

Same Sex Marriage Has Changed Over Time

Essay on Gay marriage

The Stonewall Riots: The Fight For Gay Rights

Gay Rights Essay

Let Gays Marry and Leave Marriage Alone Essay

Same Sex Marriage First Amendment Essay

Gay marriage persuasive essay

What Does Gay Rights Mean To You Essay

Essay on Gay Marriage

Should gay marriages be legalized? Essay

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal? Essay

Essay about Equal Rights for the Gay Community

Related Topics

Gay Marriage: Disputes and the Ethical Dilemma

Cite this paper

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages