discussion post

235

Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families

Elizabeth A. Suter University of Denver

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 15

236———PART III. Family Forms

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

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

Challenges to Gay and Lesbian Parents

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

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

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

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

Challenges to Children With Gay and Lesbian Parents

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

Challenges in Legal and Social Services Contexts

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

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

Communicative Challenges

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

238———PART III. Family Forms

Review and Synthesis of Extant Literature: Resilience

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

Resilience Factors Unique to Gay and Lesbian Families

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

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

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

Communication Resilience

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

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

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

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

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

Children’s Resilience

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

240———PART III. Family Forms

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

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

Fostering Gay and Lesbian Parents’ Identities

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

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

Restructuring the Gender Order

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

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

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

Race, Ethnicity and Social Location Matter

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

Context Matters

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

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

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

242———PART III. Family Forms

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

Future Research

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

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

nontraditional families’ communication patterns and processes. For instance, a special issue on “Communication and Diversity in Contemporary Families” (Turner & West, 2003) appearing in The Journal of Family Communication included an agenda for communication research on adop- tive families (Galvin, 2003). Prior to the publica- tion of Galvin’s (2003) research agenda, like lesbian and gay families, adoptive families had been historically studied in allied fields, most notably psychology. Coupled with Galvin’s (2006) articulation of discourse dependent families’ internal and external boundary management processes, Galvin (2003) stimulated a now rather large body of communication-based knowledge on adoptive family communication.

However, no such communication research agenda has yet been articulated for the study of lesbian and gay families. As such, the aim of this section is stimulate much-needed research to begin to redress the relative dearth of communi- cation research on lesbian and gay families. Moving toward a communication research agenda for the study of lesbian and gay families, this sec- tion outlines ideas for the articulation and exten- sion of communication constructs and theory highly relevant to lesbian and gay family commu- nication processes.

Communication research to date has begun to use the constructs of discourse dependence and family boundary management processes (Galvin, 2006) as well as the theory of relational dialectics (RDT) (Baxter, 2011), all developed in the field of communication studies, to fruitfully frame examinations of lesbian and gay family commu- nication processes. The question remains as to how future research might further articulate and extend the notions of discourse dependency, family boundary management processes, and relational dialectics. For instance, in the case of communication research on adoptive families, research framed by discourse dependency and boundary management processes effectively shifted adoption research from a focus on adop- tion outcomes toward a focus on the interac- tional and meaning-making processes inherent

Chapter 15. Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families ——243

in adoptive family members’ communication encounters. Research to date on lesbian and gay families has been very similarly outcome- focused. This current body of research has done tremendous work to redress long-standing nega- tive cultural assumptions about gay and lesbian parents and the welfare of their children. Not only have lesbian and gay families been shown to function at comparable levels to heterosexual families (Ryan & Brown, 2011), but they have also been shown to exhibit unique strengths and resilience factors (e.g., Ausbrooks & Russell, 2011). Similarly, children raised by gay and les- bian parents have been shown to not only fare as well as children raised by heterosexual parents (van Gelderen et al., 2012), but they too have been shown to also exhibit unique strengths and resiliency factors (e.g., Bigner, 2000). It seems that gay and lesbian families and their members are doing more than all right. The time is ripe for communication researchers to inaugurate the shift from outcome-focused research to meaning and interactional based research on lesbian and gay families. Discourse dependency, boundary management processes, and RDT provide useful frameworks to facilitate this shift.

To date, communication research on lesbian and gay families, while limited, has begun this shift. Thus far, communication research has identified this family form as discourse depen- dent (Galvin & Patrick, 2009), illuminated the discursive legitimacy challenges (Koenig Kellas, & Suter, 2012) and challenging conversations (Galvin et al., 2007) experienced by parents, as well as both the nonverbal (Bergen et al., 2006; Suter et al., 2008) and verbal resilience strategies enacted by both parents (Breshears 2010, 2011; Koenig Kellas & Suter, 2012) and their adult chil- dren (Breshears & Braithwaite, in press).

Galvin (2006) presents a typology of dis- course dependent families’ internal and external boundary management processes. Future research endeavors might use this typology to enter into discussions and examinations of the discursive work engendered by discourse depen- dent families as they work to claim and then

negotiate their identities within and across internal and external boundaries. Ideas for applying or extending Galvin’s (2006) typology include examinations of the discursive practices of nam- ing and labeling in the context of gay fatherhood, for instance. Research to date demonstrates that the lack of a legal and culturally recognizable term for nonbiological lesbian mothers is inter- nally identity disconfirming (Miller, 2012), and that some comothers choose parallel address terms for bio- and nonbiological mothers as external identity legitimation efforts (Bergen et al., 2006). Whereas past scholarship similarly illuminates the identity incongruence of the categories of gay, male, and father (e.g., Wells, 2011), research has yet to illuminate the internal and external discursive practices of gay fathers as they internally name and externally label. Future research might interrogate gay fathers’ internal discursive practices of naming, external discursive practices of labeling, or gay fathers’ discursive work across their internal and exter- nal borders.

Other ideas for applying or extending Galvin’s (2006) typology might center around the discursive practices of discussing and explaining/justifying/defending both within and across families’ internal and external borders. Research to date illuminates much positivity around parental successful management of challenging family discussions about topics such as parental sexual orientation, family structure, and heteronomativity (e.g., Breshears, 2010). Moreover, research demonstrates explicit inter- nal family discussions about intrusive interactions that require parents to explain, justify, or defend their family form can actually function to build family identity (Breshears, 2011; Koenig Kellas & Suter, 2012). Going forward, communication scholars would be well-equipped to advance these findings in and through in-depth examinations of conversational processes (e.g., disclosure and privacy management) as well as conversational meaning (dis)similarities between parents and chil- dren. In pursuing these questions, researchers might take up the call to redress the underrepresentation

244———PART III. Family Forms

of children in communication research (Miller-Day, Pezalla, & Chesnut, 2013) and shift the focus towards children’s conversational understandings and meaning-making processes.

Baxter’s (2011) RDT facilitates examination of the meanings that emerge from the interpen- etration of the centripetal (centered) and cen- trifugal (marginalized) struggle of competing discourses or systems of meaning. Whereas much research to date has illuminated the nega- tive cultural discourses surrounding gay and lesbian parenting and the welfare of their chil- dren (e.g., Giesler, 2012), to date only Breshears and Braithwaite (in press) have applied RDT to the study of lesbian and gay family communica- tion processes. Ideas for future research extend- ing Breshears and Braithwaite’s work specifically using RDT include examining alternate seman- tic objects other than the meanings of “parental coming out” experiences in adult children’s talk. More generally, future researchers might use RDT to pursue the meanings of any number of semantic objects (e.g., “family,” “heteronorma- tivity,” “stigmatization,” “resilience”) in any one identity category of the gay and lesbian family form (e.g., gay fathers) or across identity catego- ries (e.g., gay fathers, their surrogate, and their child). Such examinations offer the potential to manifest not only the multiple discourses inherent in family members’ talk but also most excitingly, how these competing discourses interpenetrate in the processes of meaning making. For instance, are the competing discourses monologic or is there space for dialogue, a conversation between alternate systems of meaning? And if there is dialogue, what forms of interplay emerge and are there possibilities for new meaning creation? Past research has indeed discovered uniqueness associated with the gay and lesbian family form (e.g., Rootes, 2013). RDT offers great potential to unearth the new meanings fashioned by gay and lesbian family members as they struggle with past cultural and relational discourses already spoken and in anticipation of those still yet to be spoken.

Conclusion

As this chapter indicates, despite evidence that the growing number of gay- and lesbian-headed fami- lies constitute a highly functioning family form, gay and lesbian parents and their children face continued stigmatization at institutional, cultural, interpersonal, and discursive levels. In the face of these challenges, gay and lesbian parents demon- strate resiliency, oftentimes in ways unique to their family form and oftentimes drawing upon com- munication as a key resource for resiliency. Lesbian and gay family members are not only resilient, but gay and lesbian parenting has been found to lead to positive outcomes for both parents and their chil- dren. With the hopes of redressing the scant atten- tion to date on these families’ communicative practices and processes, this chapter moves toward a communication research agenda by identifying avenues for future research using existing commu- nication constructs and theory highly relevant to lesbian and gay family communication processes.

References

Ausbrooks, A. R., & Russell, A. (2011). Gay and lesbian family building: A strengths perspective of tran- sracial adoption. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 201-216. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2011.564936

Averett, P. E., & Hegde, A. (2012). School social work and early childhood student’s attitudes toward gay and lesbian families. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 537-549. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.658564

Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Benson, A. L., Silverstein, L. B., & Auerbach, C. F. (2005): From the margins to the center. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1(3), 1-29. doi: 10.1300/ J461v01n03_01

Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). “About as solid as a fishnet”: Symbolic construction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological les- bian mothers. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 201-220. doi: 10.1207/s15327698jfc0603_3

Bergman, K., Rubio, R. J., Green, R. J., & Padrón, E. (2010). Gay men who become fathers via surrogacy:

Chapter 15. Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families ——245

The transition to parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(2), 111-141. doi: 10.1080/ 15504281003704942

Berkowitz, D. (2011a). “It was the Cadillac of adoption agencies”: Intersections of social class, race, and sexuality in gay men’s adoption narratives. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 109-131. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2011.537227

Berkowitz, D. (2011b). Maternal instincts, biological clocks, and soccer moms: Gay men’s parenting and family narratives. Symbolic Interaction, 34(4), 514-535. doi: 10.1525/si.2011.34.4.514.

Berkowitz, D., & Kuvalanka, K. A. (2013). Gay fathers’ involvement in their young children’s lives. In J. Pattnaik (Ed.), Father involvement in young chil- dren’s lives: A global analysis (pp. 89-106). Netherlands: Springer.

Berkowitz, D., & Marsiglio, W. (2007). Gay men: Negotiating procreative, father, and family identi- ties. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 366- 381. doi: 10.1111/j.17413737.2007.00371.x

Biblarz, T. J., & Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 480-497. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00714.x

Bigner, J. J. (2000). Raising our sons: Gay men as fathers. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 10(1), 61-77. doi: 10.1300/J041v10n01_04

Bos, H. H. M. W. (2010). Planned gay father families in kinship arrangements. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 356-371.

Bos, H., & Gartrell, N. (2010). Adolescents of the USA national longitudinal lesbian family study: Can family characteristics counteract the negative effects of stigmatization? Family Process, 49, 559- 572. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01340.x

Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., Peyser, H., & van Balen, F. (2008). The USA National longitudinal lesbian family study (NLLFS): Homophobia, psychologi- cal adjustment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12, 455-471. doi: 10.1080/1089 4160802278630

Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N, K., van Balen, F., Peyser, H., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2008). Children in planned lesbian families: A cross-cultural comparison between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 211-219. Doi: 10.1037/a0012711

Bos, H., Goldberg, N., van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. (2012). Adolescents of the U.S. national longitudinal

lesbian family study: Male role models, gender role traits, and psychological adjustment. Gender & Society, 26, 603-638. doi: 10.1177/0891243212445465

Breshears, D. (2010). Coming out with our children: Turning points facilitating lesbian parent dis- course with their children about family identity. Communication Reports, 23, 79-90. doi: 10.1080/08934215.2010.511398

Breshears, D. (2011). Understanding communication between lesbian parents and their children regarding outsider discourse about family iden- tity. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. doi: 10. 1080/1550428X.2011.564946

Breshears, D., & Braithwaite, D. (in press). Discourses animating individuals’ experiences of their par- ents coming out as lesbian or gay. Journal of Family Communication.

Brinamen, C. F., & Mitchell, V. (2008). Gay men becoming fathers: A model of identity expansion. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(4), 521-541. doi: 10.1080/15504280802191772

Broad, K. L., Alden, H., Berkowitz, D., & Ryan, M. (2008). Activist parenting and GLBTQ families. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 499-520. doi: 10.1080/15504280802191749

Brooks, D., & Goldberg, S. (2001). Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: Can they meet the needs of waiting children? Social Work, 46, 147-157. doi: 10.1093/sw/46.2.147

Brown, S., Smalling, S., Groza, V., & Ryan, S. (2009). The experiences of gay men and lesbians in becoming and being adoptive parents, Adoption Quarterly, 12, 229-246. doi: 10.1080/10926750903313294

Cacciatore, J., & Raffo, Z. (2011). An exploration of lesbian maternal bereavement. Social Work, 56, 169-177. doi: 10.1093/sw/56.2.169

Demino, K. A., Appleby, G., & Fisk, D. (2007). Lesbian mothers with planned families: A comparative study of internalized homophobia and social sup- port. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 165-173. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.77.1.165

Erich, S., Leung, P., Kindle, P., & Carter, S. (2005). Gay and lesbian adoptive families: An exploratory study of family functioning, adoptive child’s behavior, and familial support networks. Journal of Family Social Work, 9, 17-32. doi: 10.1300/ J039v09n01_02

Galvin, K. (2003). International and transracial adop- tion: A communication research agenda. The

246———PART III. Family Forms

Journal of Family Communication, 3, 237-253. doi: 10.1207/S15327698JFC0304_5

Galvin, K. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and identity. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communi- cation sourcebook (pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Galvin, K., & Patrick, D. (2009, November). Gay male partners achieving parenthood: Stories of com- municative complexities and challenges. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Galvin, K. M., Turner, L. H., Patrick, D. G., & West, R. (2007, November). Difficult conversations: The experiences of same-sex parents. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Gartrell, N., Bos, H., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2011). Family characteristics, custody arrange- ments, and adolescent psychological well-being after lesbian mothers break up. Family Relations, 60, 572-585. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00667.x

Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M. W., Peyser, H., Deck, A., Rodas, C. (2012). Adolescents with lesbian moth- ers describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1211-1229. doi: 10.1080/00918 369.2012.720499

Gates, G. J., & Cooke, A. M. (2011). Census 2010 Snapshot Series. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/Census2010Snapshot-US-v2.pdf

Gianino, M. (2008). Adaptation and transformation: The transition to adoptive parenthood for gay male couples. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(2), 205-243. doi: 10.1080/15504280802096872

Gianino, M., Goldberg, A., & Lewis, T. (2009). Family outings: Disclosure practices among adopted youth with gay and lesbian parents. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 205-228. doi: 10.1080/109267 50903313344

Giesler, M. (2012). Gay father’s negotiation of gender role strain: A qualitative inquiry. Fathering, 10, 119-139. doi: 0.3149/fth.1002.119

Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: APA.

Goldberg, N. G., Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. K. (2011). Substance use by adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study,

Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 1231-1240. doi: 10.1177/1359105311403522

Golding, A. C. (2006). Redefining the nuclear family: An exploration of resiliency in lesbian parents. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 18, 35-65. doi: 10.1300/J086v18n01_02

Hardesty, J. L., Oswald, R. F., Khaw, L., & Fonseca, C. (2011). Lesbian/bisexual mothers and intimate partner violence: Help seeking in the context of social and legal vulnerability. Violence Against Women, 17, 28-46. doi: 10.1177/1077801209347636

Hicks, S. (2006). Maternal men—perverts and devi- ants?: Making sense of gay men as foster carers and adopters. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 761-776.

Johnson, S. M., & O’Connor, E. (2002). The gay baby boom: The psychology of gay parenthood. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Johnston, L. B., Moore, B. A., & Judd, R. (2010). Gay and lesbian households’ perceptions of their fam- ily functioning: Strengths and resiliency. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 315-325. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2010.490901

Kinkler, L. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Working with what we’ve got: Perceptions of barriers and sup- ports among small-metropolitan-area same-sex adopting couples. Family Relations, 60, 387-403. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00654.x

Kitntner-Duffy, V. L., Vardell, R., Lower, J. K., & Cassidy, D. J. (2012). “The changers and the changed”: Preparing early childhood teachers to work with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33, 208-223. doi: 10.1080/10901027.2012.705806

Koenig Kellas, J., & Suter, E. A. (2012). Accounting for lesbian-headed families: Lesbian mothers’ responses to discursive challenges. Communication Monographs, 79, 475-498. doi: 10.1080/0363 7751.2012.723812

Leddy, A., Gartrell, N., & Bos, H. (2012). Growing up in a lesbian family: The life experiences of the adult daughters and sons of lesbian mothers. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8, 243-257. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2012.677233

Lick, D. J., Riskind, R. G., & Patterson, C. J. (2012). Social climate for sexual minorities predicts well- being among heterosexual offspring of lesbian and gay parents. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 9, 99-112. doi: 10.1007/s13178-012-0081-6

Chapter 15. Communication in Lesbian and Gay Families ——247

Miller, K. L. (2012). What will they call you?: Rhetorically listening to lesbian maternal narra- tives. International Journal of Listening, 26, 134- 145. doi: 10.1080/10904018.2012.712471

Miller-Day, M., Pezalla, A., Chesnut, R. (2013). Children are in families too!: The presence of children in communication research, Journal of Family Communication, 13, 150-165. doi: 10.1080/ 15267431.2013.768251

Movement Advancement Project. (2011). All children matter: How legal and social inequalities hurt LGBT families. Retrieved from http://www.lgbt- map.org/all-children-matter-full-report

Oswald, R. F., Blume, L. B., & Marks, S. R. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: A proposal for fam- ily studies. In V. Bengston, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: An interactive approach (pp. 143-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oswald, R. F., Cuthbertson, C., Lazarevic, V., & Goldberg, A. E., (2010). Measuring community climate. Journal of GLBT Studies, 6, 214-228. doi: 10.1080/15504281003709230

Patterson, C. J., & Wainright, J. L. (2011). Adolescents with same-sex parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. In D. M. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoptions by lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in fam- ily diversity (pp. 112-129). New York, NY: Oxford.

Richardson, H. B., Moyer, A. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). “You try to be Superman and you don’t have to be: Gay adoptive fathers’ challenges and tensions in balancing work and family. Fathering, 10, 314-336. doi: 10.3149/fth.1003.314

Rincon, M., & Trung Lam, B. (2011). The perspectives of Latino mothers on Latina lesbian families. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21, 334-349. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2011.555641

Rootes, K. M. H. (2013). Wanted fathers: Understanding gay father families through contextual family therapy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9, 43-64. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2013.746055

Ryan, M., & Berkowitz, D. (2009). Constructing gay and lesbian parent families “beyond the closet.” Qualitative Sociology, 32, 153-172. doi: 10.1007/ s11133-009-9124-6

Ryan, S., & Brown, S. (2011). Gay and lesbian adoptive parents: Strengths and stressors. In D. M. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoptions by

lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family diversity (pp. 184-203). New York, NY: Oxford.

Saffron, L. (1998). Raising children in an age of diver- sity: Advantages of having a lesbian mother. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2, 35-41. doi: 10.1300/ J155v02n04_04

Shapiro, D. N., Peterson, C., & Stewart, A. J. (2009). Legal and social contexts and mental health among les- bian and heterosexual mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 255-262. doi: 10.1037/a0014973

Suter, E. A., Daas, K. L., & Bergen, K. M. (2008). Negotiating lesbian family identity via symbols and rituals. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 26-47. doi: 0.1177/0192513X07305752

Tasker, F., & Golombok (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child development. New York, NY: Guilford.

Tasker, F., & Granville, J. (2011). Children’s views of family relationships in lesbian-led families. Journal of GLBT Studies, 7, 182-199. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2011.540201

Tornello, S. L., Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2011). Predictors of parenting stress among gay adoptive fathers in the United States. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 591-600. doi: 10.1037/a0024480

Turner, L. H., & West, R. (2003). (Eds.). (2003). Communication and diversity in contemporary families [Special issue]. Journal of Family Communication, 3(4).

van Gelderen, L., Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N., Hermanns, J., & Perrin, E. C. (2012). Quality of life of adoles- cents raised from birth by lesbian mothers: The US National Longitudinal Family Study. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 33, 1-7.

van Gelderen, L., Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M.W., van Rooij, F. B., & Hermanns, J. M. A. (2012). 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, 34, 999-1006. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth. 2012.01.048

Wells, G. (2011). Making room for daddies: Male couples creating families through adoption, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 155-181. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2011.537242

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (1995). Communication in gay and lesbian families. In T. J. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communica- tion (pp. 147-169). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.