Queer Chicano Families: The Importance of Converging Literature on Queer Families,Chicano Families,and Chicano Queers

Despite growing literature on Latino families and Latino queer identities, there has been relatively little empirical research on Latino same‐sex families. Likewise, emerging empirical research on gay and lesbian couples tends to focus on the experiences of middle‐class, well‐educated, White couples. I argue that combining theoretical and empirical works on sexuality, Chicano studies, and queer studies can assuage this lack of diversity in each body of literature. This work first examines current literature on Latino families, with a focus on Latino familism. This is followed by a brief examination of current literature on queer Chicanos. Lastly, it will discuss queer families and the lack of current literature on Latino same‐sex couples, in order to present a course of action for further research on the intersectional social location of queer Chicano families.     

Marriage,the Final Frontier? Same‐Sex Marriage and the Future of the Lesbian and Gay Movement

Given hostility within segments of LGBT communities toward same‐sex marriage, how do Australian activists justify their efforts toward achieving marriage equality? In this article, we expand the social movement literature by examining how activists construct identity, meaning, and goals in contradistinction to others within the same movement. We draw on interviews with Australian lesbian and gay activists to examine what enables them to pursue the contested goal of same‐sex marriage in light of internal movement critiques that marriage equality will undermine the significance of lesbian and gay identity and impair activism on other issues as a result of the view that equality has been achieved. We expand debates over the post‐gay trajectory of lesbian and gay activism and identity by illustrating how activists attach different, what we term, mobilizing meanings, to the same movement goal which enables them to withstand internal movement critiques. We provide a typology of mobilizing meanings that can be applied more generally.     

Relationship Education and Therapy for Same‐Sex Couples

The gay and lesbian community suffers higher rates of discrimination, mental health problems, and relationship break‐up than their heterosexual counterparts. In this paper we analyse the challenges confronting same‐sex couples, and the implications for couple education and therapy with same‐sex couples. We describe some similarities in the challenges confronting heterosexual and same‐sex couples (e.g., negotiation of shared realistic relationship expectations, effective communication). These similarities suggest existing evidence‐based approaches to couple therapy and relationship education are likely to assist same sex couple relationships. We also describe distinctive challenges for same‐sex couples (e.g., homophobic discrimination, internalised homophobia, and low support from many families for same sex relationships). These distinctive challenges suggest some adaptation of existing approaches to couple education and therapy could enhance their relevance and effectiveness to same sex couples.     

‘A New Language that Speaks of Change Just As It Steps Toward It’: Transnationalism,Erotic Justice and Queer Human Rights Praxis

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movements have too often been dominated by US liberal individualist framings of lesbian and gay rights, resulting in the hegemony of US‐focused issues and institutional actions, despite the irony that the US government has been relatively unsupportive of LGBT rights on the international stage. We argue that transnational, grassroots queer movements embody more profound aspirations that do not limit the meaning of queer liberation to singular identity politics or rights‐restraining institutions. Specifically, we point to transnational and Third World‐based queer movements that offer more complex structural analyses of sexual oppression as well as more visionary praxes of sexual rights. Drawing on lessons from two cases of queer human rights praxis from the Philippines and México, we assert that a queer grassroots enactment of human rights allows for multiple subaltern constituencies to find – and to make – a place in human rights discourses; queer identity and actions create social formations that expand human rights agendas to further embody the intersectionality, interdependence and transnationality of daily life. Key to these enactments of queer human rights praxis are prefigurative politics and rooted cosmopolitanism, which catalyze new expansions of human rights to include intersectional framings and practices of erotic justice.     

LG(BT) Families and Counting

Counting and understanding lesbian and gay families have gained attention over the last decade in popular culture, policy, and academic research. Contentious debates on family values and same‐sex marriage, increasing rates of social tolerance for homosexuality, and a greater general academic attention on issues of sexual orientation have partially spurred this attention in demographic analysis of lesbian and gay families. It is becoming increasingly clear that sexual orientation and gender identity have an effect on demographic processes and life outcomes. Although not perfect, practically speaking, drawing on nationally representative survey data has allowed us to illuminate the presence of same‐sex families and their children. These findings have an iterative relationship with social change, public policy, and increasing tolerance for diversity. This article reviews the recent demographic contributions related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families. Due to research concentrations, the content of this article not only mostly addresses what is known about gay and lesbian families but also offers future directions to fill research voids including a call for greater attention to and visibility for families with bisexual and transgender members.     

How the Right Usurped the Queer Agenda: Frame Co‐optation in Political Discourse

This article draws on a case study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and queer politics in Vermont to explain the conditions under which radical discourse gains and loses a public voice. In contrast to claims that the marginalization of queer discourse is due to silencing by LGBT rights activists or to litigation strategies, we argue that variation in queer discourse over time is the result of the co‐optation of queer discourse and goals by opponents. Extending the social movement literature on frame variation, we argue that opponents co‐opt discourse when they adopt aspects of the content of a movement's discourse, while subverting its intent. We show that conservative LGBT rights opponents co‐opted queer discourse. As a result, queer positions lost their viability as the discursive field in which those arguments were made was fundamentally altered. Because queer positions became less tenable, we see the withdrawal of queer discourse from the mainstream and alternative LGBT media. Our work both supports and builds on research on frame variation by demonstrating how discourse can change over time in response to the interplay between changing aspects of the political and cultural landscape and the discourse of opponents.     

Marriage (In)equality: The Perspectives of Adolescents and Emerging Adults With Lesbian,Gay, and Bisexual Parents

The debate over whether same‐sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil marriages continues in the United States. Forty‐nine adolescents and emerging adults (ages 14–29) with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents were interviewed for the current exploratory study, which examined how individuals perceived themselves and their families as being affected by marriage (in)equality, as well as the factors that shaped their perspectives. More than two thirds of participants voiced unequivocal support for marriage equality, citing numerous legal and symbolic benefits that their families were denied. One quarter of participants articulated critical perspectives of marriage or the fight for marriage equality, while also acknowledging the benefits associated with marriage. As the first study to examine the perspectives of individuals with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents with regard to marriage (in)equality, this research has important implications for the marriage equality debate and provides a springboard for future studies on this topic.     

More than Surface Tension: Femmes in Families

SUMMARY

This article raises questions about the lack of scholarly focus on butch/femme couples and their absence in studies of lesbian couples and family-building. In an era of lesbian marriage and lesbian parenting, femme and butch coupling and family-building remain unspoken topics within family studies, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT)–specific research. Moving beyond a focus on eroticism within the femme/butch couple, questions about how gender expression impacts other relationships dynamics, including the maintenance of long-term relationships, power and intimacy, domestic chores and child-rearing, are raised. The femme role in “homemaking,” that is, building and maintaining families, especially needs further exploration.     

“Women's Work”? Women Partners of Transgender Men Doing Housework and Emotion Work

Despite increasing family studies research on same‐sex cohabiters and families, the literature is virtually devoid of transgender and transsexual families. To bridge this gap, I present qualitative research narratives on household labor and emotion work from 50 women partners of transgender and transsexual men. Contrary to much literature on “same‐sex” couples, the division of household labor and emotion work within these contemporary families cannot simply be described as egalitarian. Further, although the forms of emotion work and “gender strategies,”“family myths,” and “accounts” with which women partners of trans men engage resonate with those from women in (non‐trans) heterosexual and lesbian couples, they are also distinct, highlighting tensions among personal agency, politics, and structural inequalities in family life.     

Difference and Diversity:

Some therapists believe that they should treat gay and lesbian couples ôjust like heterosexual couples.ö Others hold the view that same-sex couples are completely different from heterosexual couples and that only specially trained therapist can work with them. This paper is an attempt to over come the lack of information about gay and lesbian couple by describing the differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples; differences between gay couples and lesbian couples; diversity within both lesbian couples and gay couples; and the therapeutic implications of these differences. The discussion of differences has powerful political implications and is embedded within a larger context of belief systems about gender and sexual orientation. Therapist needs to protect against categorizing, essentializing, or over generalizing about gay and lesbian couples. Although heterosexism, homophobia, and sexism affect the dynamics of all gay and lesbian relationships, it is important to recognize that age, class, race, ethnicity, and physical ability, as well as the dynamics of each individual couple, make each relationship unique. The therapist, whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual, should be familiar with issues specific to lesbian and gay experience within the dominant society, and, at the same time, be attuned to the idiosyncratic nature of individual couples.     

What Shall We Call Ourselves? Last Names Among Lesbian,Gay, and Heterosexual Couples and Their Adopted Children

ABSTRACT

Choices of last names for both adults and children are important family decisions that are often made upon marriage or upon the birth of a child. The gendered nature of such choices among heterosexual populations is well known, but they have not been widely studied among lesbian or gay populations. We studied selection of last names among 106 adoptive families—27 headed by lesbian couples, 29 headed by gay couples, and 50 headed by heterosexual couples—all of whom had adopted children at birth or in the first weeks of life. Whether in selection of last names for adults or for children, we found that heterosexual adoptive couples were more likely than lesbian and gay adoptive couples to follow patronymic conventions. Thus, heterosexual parents and their children were most likely to have identical last names. For lesbian and gay couples, in contrast, the most common scenario was for both adults to retain last names given to them at birth and hyphenate them to create last names for their children. Parents in lesbian and gay couples offered more detailed explanations of their choices than did those in heterosexual couples. Explanations offered by heterosexual parents were most likely to refer to tradition, but those given by same-sex parents were more likely to mention egalitarian or practical considerations. Overall, we found that same-sex and other-sex couples took very different approaches to the problem of naming themselves and their children.     

Intimacy and Emotion Work in Lesbian,Gay, and Heterosexual Relationships

Knowledge about how gender shapes intimacy is dominated by a heteronormative focus on relationships involving a man and a woman. In this study, the authors shifted the focus to consider gendered meanings and experiences of intimacy in same‐sex and different‐sex relationships. They merged the gender‐as‐relational perspective—that gender is co‐constructed and enacted within relationships—with theoretical perspectives on emotion work and intimacy to frame an analysis of in‐depth interviews with 15 lesbian, 15 gay, and 20 heterosexual couples. They found that emotion work directed toward minimizing and maintaining boundaries between partners is key to understanding intimacy in long‐term relationships. Moreover, these dynamics, including the type and division of emotion work, vary for men and women depending on whether they are in a same‐sex or different‐sex relationship. These findings push thinking about diversity in long‐term relationships beyond a focus on gender difference and toward gendered relational contexts.     

Sexual expression: its emotional context in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples

Much of what is known about emotions and sexuality explores the relationship enhancing qualities of positive affect. This research extends the current literature by focusing on the association between negative feelings and sexual thoughts and experiences in the context of close relationships, controlling for the effect of positive feelings. Specifically, the unique effects of daily negative feelings toward one's partner in general and specific negative feelings (i.e., anger, anxiety, and sadness) on the sexual experience of heterosexual, gay male, and lesbian relationships were explored. Participants completed an initial questionnaire followed by daily diary measures for 14 consecutive days. Positive feelings were positively associated with sexual variables as expected. Negative feelings were associated with increases in sexual behaviors for heterosexual men and women and gay men, but not lesbian women. Sadness showed a unique positive association with arousal, lust, wanted sexual behavior, and sexual behavior for heterosexual men and women and gay men, but not lesbian women. Neither anger nor anxiety was uniquely associated with the sexual experience for heterosexual or same-sex couples.     

The Power and Limits of Marriage: Married Gay Men's Family Relationships

Same‐sex marriage has received much scholarly attention in the United States in the past decade. Yet we know little about how same‐sex couples experience marriage. In this article, I present findings from in‐depth interviews with 32 legally married gay men in Iowa. I focus on their experiences with families of origin and investigate the legitimating potential of same‐sex marriage. The men had high expectations about the power of marriage to help them gain recognition and support, but their experiences with family members were more varied and complex than they expected. Although marriage often led to positive family outcomes, it also commonly had negative consequences, including new and renewed experiences of family rejection. This study complicates ideas about the legitimating potential of marriage for same‐sex couples by illuminating both its power and limits in helping gay men gain status and support from their families of origin.     

Are Gay and Lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples?

Both partners from gay and lesbian cohabiting couples without children were compared longitudinally with both partners from heterosexual married couples with children (N at first assessment = 80, 53, and 80 couples, respectively) on variables from 5 domains indicative of relationship health. For 50% of the comparisons, gay and lesbian partners did not differ from heterosexual partners. Seventy‐eight percent of the comparisons on which differences were found indicated that gay or lesbian partners functioned better than heterosexual partners did. Because the variables that predicted concurrent relationship quality and relationship stability for heterosexual parents also did so for gay and lesbian partners, I conclude that the processes that regulate relationship functioning generalize across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.     

Queering the Home

Abstract

In the West, the private sphere of the home is traditionally associated with the heterosexual nuclear family. Through social, cultural, and legal processes, the heterosexual bond has been constructed as central to the family home. Despite these dominant discourses, the home is also a space in which heteronormativity (or the unacknowledged assumption that heterosexuality is the natural and normal form of sexuality) may be subverted. This article considers how the domestic lives of lesbian and gay couples in England challenge the heteronormativity prevalent in dominant discourses of the home. Drawing on in-depth interviews with lesbians and gay men, the article continues to extend and build on the existing literature on queer domesticity by focusing on how lesbian and gay couples divide and understand domestic labor in their homes. The perceived normativity of coupled domesticity and childrearing means that on the one hand the lesbian and gay participants in this study could be seen to fit in with normative ideals of domestic family life. On the other hand, I show how these couples subvert heteronormative assumptions about gendered household practices through their approaches and attitudes towards domestic labor and parenting. In particular, the article focuses on the complex ways in which lesbian and gay couples destabilize traditional domestic gender roles and queer the spaces of the home through the seemingly unremarkable, mundane practices and negotiations of domestic labor and childcare.     

Yet another minority issue or good news for all? Approaching LGBT issues in European social work education

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the questions of why to include and how to approach LGBT issues in the context of European social work education. Referring to social work’s commitment to LGBT people, the article points out its ongoing relevance as questions of marginalisation and discrimination point far beyond formal equality in legislation and normalisation of homosexuality within existing societal institutions. Furthermore, new questions and dynamics in rapidly changing and highly diverse societal contexts bring about new challenges in addressing LGBT issues. Against this background, the article discusses problems of representation and knowledge and underlines the potential of a queer approach. A queer perspective questions taken-for-granted assumptions about sexual orientation, gender identity and intimate relationships. It challenges normalising categories of sex, gender and desire and brings out possibilities existing beyond the heteronormative order. This way, it offers social work education a powerful theoretical lens to address issues on sexual orientation and gender identity not only as yet another minority issue, but as transversal matter and as good news for all. In this article, we use the acronym LGBT to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people. LGBT is meant to include and at the same time emphasise the differences between people who do not (exclusively) define themselves as heterosexual and who cannot or do not want to match or identify with binarities of sex, gender and desire. We do not use the acronym LGBTI because we find it problematic to include intersex people without taking explicitly into account their specific situations and needs. Making a plea for a queer approach, we share – of course – a critical view on categorisations and identity labels.     

Lesbian,gay, bisexual,and transgender families and health

Research consistently demonstrates that family relationships are key determinants of health, but most research on health and families focuses on a heterosexual and cisgender context. Sexual and gender identities often are overlooked or erased in family and health research. We present an overview of the current state of research on LGBT families and health, using a life course approach and pointing to the ways that LGBT people's experiences of families occur within a broader social structural context, with implications for their health and the health of their family members. We focus on parenthood, parent–child ties, intimate relationships, and caregiving. We also identify two theoretical obstacles for studies of LGBT families and health as well as important research areas for moving forward, such as the inclusion of non‐binary and queer identities in our studies of family and health. Incorporation of LGBT and other queer families and family forms into our health research interrogates assumptions within family and health research and offers insight into how to move the field forward.     

Greedy Spouse,Needy Parent: The Marital Dynamics of Gay,Lesbian, and Heterosexual Intergenerational Caregivers

It is well established that married heterosexual women do more intergenerational caregiving for aging parents and parents‐in‐law than married heterosexual men do. However, gay men and lesbian women's recent access to marriage presents new questions about the gendered marital dynamics of intergenerational caregiving. We use dyadic data with gay, lesbian, and heterosexual spouses to examine the marital dynamics of intergenerational caregivers. Results show that gay and lesbian spouses provided intensive time and emotional support for an intergenerational caregiver. In contrast, heterosexual women described their intergenerational caregiving as rarely supported and at times even undermined by their spouse. Dyadic data on heterosexual men corroborate women's accounts; heterosexual men rarely reported providing intergenerational caregiving, and thus heterosexual women rarely described providing spousal support. These findings provide new insight into the intermingled roles of “greedy” marriages and “needy” parents, wherein marital negotiations around caregiving vary by gender for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual marital dyads.