CONFESSIONS OF A COMMENTATOR: RECOGNIZING ONE'S OWN EXCLUSION OF RACE AND ETHNICITY FROM SEXUAL ORIENTATION SCHOLARSHIP
Barbara J. Cox*
I am somewhat uncomfortable participating on this panel in the role of commentator. My discomfort comes from the fact that I just started reading the recent literature about race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation after Frank Valdes1 asked me to be a member of this panel. After agreeing to participate, I decided to look at my own scholarship, which discusses various gay and lesbian legal issues, and see whether it seemed "unduly disconnected" from issues of race, ethnicity, and class. I would like to share my discoveries in this essay and the thoughts that have come from reviewing my scholarship, that of the panelists, and the other literature that exists.
Before doing the research to prepare for this discussion, I had spent time thinking about the intersection, cosynthesis, or analogy between race, ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation. As someone who is somewhat familiar with fem crit, race crit and queer crit theories,2 I recognize that each and all of our many identities impact both on theory and practice in solving the issues that confront us.
Additionally, my first two articles paid close attention to issues of race, ethnicity, and class while discussing the needs of gay and lesbian families to obtain domestic partner (or as I called them then, alternative family) benefits. My first article on domestic partner benefits explored the many ways in which restricting the definition of family to those in traditional, marital nuclear families negatively impacted gay men and lesbians.3 Some of the issues I analyzed also showed that the negative impact was more severe for some members of the gay and lesbian community, particularly people of color. For example, I discussed Moore v. East Cleveland,4 which considered the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance that distinguished between nuclear and extended families. The court struck down the ordinance, noting that the "nation's tradition of family life includes uncles, aunts, cousins and especially grandchildren sharing a household along with parents and children."5 Even the United States Supreme Court recognized that restrictive definitions of family in zoning ordinances negatively impacted more people of color who more frequently than whites lived in extended families. My project was to show how those restrictive definitions also significantly impacted gay and lesbian families, and especially those gays and lesbians who are people of color.
My second article specifically explored how restricting family recognition to heterosexual, nuclear families or even two-person domestic partnerships had a particularly negative impact on poor and working class families, people of color, and gay men and lesbians who tend to form extended alternative families and oftentimes cannot fit within the restricted definitions used of "two adults....and their dependent children."6 I argued that the negative impact increases, oftentimes exponentially, when those affected are gay and lesbian people of color who are poor or working class.
The article concentrated on the perspectives of women and the impact of patriarchy on the subordination of women within many families.7 The article discussed alternative family rights in a context which included the perspectives of women of different races, classes, and sexual orientations. I felt these perspectives were necessary to any "meaningful critique of the accepted family definition because lesbians, poor and working class women, and women of color form families outside the traditional definition more often than do heterosexual, white, middle-class women."8
I was concerned in both articles about the impact of family definitions on poor and working class ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 1--------------------------------------- people, recognizing in both situations that the impact of racism in our society has led to a disproportionate percentage of people of color being trapped in the economic underclass. I was particularly concerned with the restriction of family benefits to the traditional nuclear family because that meant that benefits which were intended to provide economic support to families were denied to these alternative families which compounded their financial problems.
In the past four years, my scholarship has focused on same-sex marriage and conflicts of law. There has been much disagreement among lesbian and gay activists and scholars about whether the gay and lesbian community should seek the freedom for same-sex couples to marry. Some of the objections raised by various scholars, including Darren Hutchinson,9 Nancy Polikoff,10 and Paula Ettelbrick,11 have been that marriage would simply provide more benefits to those persons in our communities who are middle- or upper-class and would not address problems of gay and lesbian people who are poor or working class.
I disagree with that perspective. The ideas explored in my domestic partnership articles indicate that obtaining the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples may result in providing significant economic benefits to the poor and working class members of our communities. It is true that marriage may negatively impact some people who are receiving government benefits because their spouse's income and property would then be imputed to their own in determining benefit eligibility.12
But it is equally true that members of the working poor and working class who would be eligible for family health insurance, educational, and other benefits if they were married, would obtain significant benefits from being able to choose whether marriage is consistent with their own views of their relationships.13 Additionally, because many of the poor, working class, and middle class do not have access to lawyers to draft documents to protect their relationships and may be unaware or unable to get advice on how to limit the negative effects of a heterosexist society on their lives, they may find that marriage will provide them with the same automatic protections that are currently afforded to other married couples. They would not have to spend scarce resources having wills, powers of attorney for property and health care, and other documents drafted to protect their families. The regime of protections that currently recogize and protect marital relationships without necessitating any additional documents would mean added protections for many of these families.
To me, it is unimportant where one falls when discussing this and other issues. The points made by all are valuable to consider. What is important is that we have the conversation--meaning that when discussing the pros and cons of seeking the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, we must consider those pros and cons for all members of the gay and lesbian community, not just those who are white and economically advantaged.
The other time that my writing centered on how issues facing gay and lesbian families (my primary focus) are impacted by recognition of racism, ethnocentrism, classism, able-bodism, and other expressions of privilege was in working on a book proposal with Frank Valdes and Ruthann Robson. We were preparing a proposal for a book on sexuality and sexual orientation, and both Frank and Ruthann were very concerned that our material include the perspectives of and issues facing gays and lesbians who are poor, working class, people of color, disabled and the numerous combinations of each. I am reluctant to admit that, while I immediately agreed with the need to include such perspectives and materials, it was Frank and Ruthann who made that a primary focus of our book proposal, not me. Going along with the idea of having an inclusive perspective when someone else raises it is not and cannot be enough.
In preparing for this panel discussion, I have realized that perhaps I too readily accept my white privilege which permits me to wait for someone else to ask whether I am including these questions and perspectives in my scholarly inquiry. I have permitted that privilege to limit my focus and disable me from being among those who were primary in creating space for the dialogue that is occurring today. As a white person in a racist society, I am granted insider status, despite my identity as a lesbian, a woman, a recovering drug addict and alcoholic.
I can recognize my white privilege by many different indicia. ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 2---------------------------------------
First, when I was chair of the AALS Section on Gay and Lesbian Legal Issues, the programs that I helped to organize for the 1991 AALS conference did not raise the questions that are being asked today. I could use the excuse provided by Frank Valdes in his recent Queer Margins, Queer Ethics article that gay and lesbian scholarship was in an essentialist first stage,14 and that "postmodern insights of multiplicity and intersectionality appeared relatively recently on the legal scholarly scene -- the late 1980s and early 1990s -- and thus perhaps tardy for meaningful incorporation into ongoing first-generation projects or agendas.15 But that would be primarily an excuse, not an honest answer for why I did not organize a panel such as this one for the 1991 annual conference.
Second, I have come recently to reading the scholarship on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation that has been written by members of today's panel and other authors, many of whom are in this audience. I believe it is white privilege that has allowed me not to notice how our communities' discussions of gay and lesbian liberation have consistently not recognized that the questions and answers may be different depending on what other communities to which one belongs. When I look at gay and lesbian issues with the privilege given due to my whiteness, I do not have to recognize that the questions I ask and the answers I envision may not work for all members of the gay and lesbian community. White privilege permits me to retain my ignorance and not even recognize it as ignorance until appealed to by my colleagues. For example, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to ask Frank to give me a list of articles to read to prepare for this panel. I have now read most of them and recognize how my white privilege allowed me to be unaware of their existence.
Third, I have shared white privilege with many of the other chairs of this section. We have been, in large part, mainly white academics who focus on gay and lesbian issues. The question that bothers me (once I am conscious enough to ask it) is why is it most often a person of color who organizes a discussion like this one. The same can be said for other outsider groups as well--when a woman becomes chair, she oftentimes sees different issues and sees the same issues differently because she is a woman; when a lesbian becomes chair or when a person with a disability becomes chair, they too see differently than the privileged ones before them. So too in this instance: when a Latino gay man became chair, he asked why it is that we are not discussing race and ethnicity at the same time we were discussing sexual orientation.
Because privilege can often blind us to questions that are obvious to those who are not blind, those of us with white privilege many times wait until a person of color asks us to think about race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. We do not take responsibility ourselves to see what so clearly disturbs our colleagues. Secure in our privilege, we too often limit our vision of the things that need to be discussed, the ways they need to be discussed, and the questions and answers that come from discussing them.
I find it difficult to write this essay and take responsibility for having white privilege. I feel a need to try to explain to you, and perhaps to myself, that I am someone who has tried to recognize that I have white privilege, learn what it means both to have that privilege and not to have that privilege, and spend my energy both diluting the power of that privilege, as well as seeking understanding of the ways in which it clouds my vision. I want to try and explain to you that I have done much work on recognizing my white privilege and my racism, that I have asked myself to learn and not wait to be taught by people of color, that I have tried to understand that my work is to help other white people recognize the privilege that we receive from our whiteness and help to destroy or, at least, dilute it.
But even while I want to explain all that, to show how some of my scholarship does include a clear recognition of issues of class, race, and ethnicity in structuring ways to address the legal issues facing the gay and lesbian community, I too must be honest in recognizing that I have had the choice to include or not include, a choice that is always based on privilege.
What I wish for myself is that when Frank had called me to discuss this panel, I would not have needed to ask for a set of ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 3--------------------------------------- reading materials. Instead, I would have read them already, knowing that I needed to be aware of the perspectives offered in that discussion. I feel comfortable claiming a certain expertise and awareness of the legal literature discussing the issues facing the lesbian and gay community. But my comfort has been shaken because I was unaware of an entire portion of that literature. While I know that, thankfully now due to its vast expression and development, I cannot have read everything, I also know that, for most other legal issues facing the gay and lesbian community, I have at least a passing acquaintance with the literature. I could once again try to excuse myself by saying that I can extrapolate from the fem/race/lat/queercrit reading on some of the issues that have been discussed by these authors. But that would be a weak excuse, and would ignore that there were many issues that I had not considered and much knowledge that I did not have. I have now read most of that literature and recognize how white privilege allowed me to lack knowledge of its existence.
My hope is that all of us who participated in the discussion at the AALS conference, and all of us who hear the tape of that conversation, and all of us who are reading or writing for this symposium issue will take heed of how important this discussion is. We need to change the whiteness of gay and lesbian scholarship. We need to recognize its monolithic viewpoint. We need to make sure that the next time we discuss these issues, two things have happened. First, we need to make sure that the articles, the symposia, the theory cannot all be listed on a single sheet of paper, because many of us will have delved into the questions that have been asked today and the questions that remain to be asked and discussed.16 Second, we need to ask ourselves to alter our own scholarship to eliminate white privilege from it; to eliminate a notion that, when we talk of issues concerning gay and lesbian liberation, we are only talking about liberating white people from the heterosexism of our society. If we do what these panelists, moderator, and organizers ask of us, then we can really talk about liberation for the gay and lesbian community in a way that is inclusive while recognizing our differences as well as our similarities.
Endnotes
* Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, California Western School of Law.
1 Professor of Law, University of Miami, Chair of AALS Section on Gay and Lesbian Legal Issues, and organizer of this panel.
2 See generally, Frank Valdes, Queer Margins, Queer Ethics: A Call to Account for Race and Ethnicity in the Law, Theory and Politics of "Sexual Orientation," ___ Hastings L.J. ___, nn. 3-19 and text (1998)(forthcoming).
3 Barbara J. Cox, Alternative Families: Obtaining Traditional Family Benefits Through Litigation, Legislation and Collective Bargaining, 2 Wis. Women's L.J. 1 (1986)[hereinafter referred to as Alternative Families].
4 431 U.S. 494 (1977).
5 Cox, Alternative Families, supra note 3, at 17.
6 Cox, Choosing One's Family: Can the Legal System Address the Breadth of Women's Choice of Intimate Relationship?, VIII St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 306 (1989)[hereinafter referred to as Choosing One's Family].
7 Id. at 307.
8 Id.
9 Darren Lenard Hutchinson, Out Yet Unseen: A Racial Critique of Gay and Lesbian Legal Theory and Political Discourse, 29 Conn. L. Rev. 561, 585-602 (1997).
10 Nancy D. Polikoff, We Will Get What We Ask For: Why Legalizing Gay and Lesbian Marriage Will ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 4--------------------------------------- Not "Dismantle the Legal Structure of Gender in Every Marriage," 79 Va. L. Rev. 1535 (1993).
11 Paula Ettelbrick, Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?, in LESBIANS, GAY MEN AND THE LAW 401 (William B. Rubenstein ed., 1993); Paula L. Ettelbrick, Wedlock Alert: A Comment on Lesbian and Gay Family Recognition, 5 J.L. & Pol'y 107 (1996).
12 Ruthann Robson, To Market, To Market: Considering Class in the Context of Lesbian Legal Theories and Reforms, 5 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's Stud. 173, 182 (1995); Hutchinson, supra note 9, at 599 n. 153.
13 Cox, Choosing One's Family, supra note 6, at 310, indicating that family health insurance benefits for a working-class, lesbian family of 6 cost that family $2400 per year to replace benefits that would have been provided by one adult's employer if the employer had not restricted coverage to traditional families.
14 Valdes, supra note 2, at ___ (forthcoming)
15 Id.
16 Id. at n. 12, listing the following scholarship of this "internal racial critique." Hutchinson, supra note 9; Darren Rosenblum, Queer Intersectionality and the Failure of Recent Lesbian and Gay "Victories," 4 Law & Sexuality 83 (1994); Cynthia Petersen, Envisioning a Lesbian Equality Jurisprudence in LEGAL INVERSIONS: LESBIANS, GAY MEN AND THE POLITICS OF LAW 118 (Didi Herman & Carl Stychin eds., 1995); Isabelle R. Guning, Stories from Home: Tales from the Intersection of Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation, 5 So. Cal. L. Rev. Women's Stud. 25 (1995); Mary Eaton, Homosexual Unmodified: Speculation on Law's Discourse, Race and the Construction of Sexual Identity in LEGAL INVERSIONS, supra at 46; Eric Heinze, Gay and Poor, 38 How. L.J. 433 (1995); Ruthann Robson, supra note 12.
RESPIRO LIBRE:1 COMING HOME TO A LATINA LESBIAN SELF:
Race and Sexual Orientation in Legal Scholarship
Remarks of Elvia R. Arriola
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW
Lesbian and Gay Section of the Association of American Law Schools Meeting
Friday, January 9, 1998, San Francisco, California
Good Afternoon. I feel I have been trying to have this conversation for such a long time. I can't help but feel emotional as I stand before you to have this discussion on race and sexual orientation in legal scholarship. I have been writing about and been involved as a feminist latina lesbian scholar for so many years. And for so many of those years, as I think back upon the environments or the conditions surrounding my work, I can't help but remember how alone I often felt because of the intersectional nature of my identity, as not only lesbian and feminist but also Latina. I remember for example, when I was
writing my very first law review article2--as I was coming out as a lesbian and also budding as a civil rights lawyer in the early eighties in New York City. At times I felt very connected to the gay and lesbian civil rights community I was coming to know personally and professionally through my progressive contacts. For awhile, after my post- graduate fellowship at the ACLU ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 5--------------------------------------- National Headquarters, I volunteered my legal services for Lambda Legal Defense and met wonderful people who helped me feel proud of the fact that I had the courage to come out publicly as a lesbian. But so many other times I felt disconnected completely from these same people; I felt the conspicuousness of my brown skin and Spanish surname when I sat in huge conference rooms as the lone minority among over two dozen other lawyers and activists, deliberating, for example, the litigation strategies for the then upcoming hearing by the Supreme Court in the Bowers v. Hardwick3 . I can't say that I completely understood then all of the reasons for my feeling disconnected from the mostly white male and a few lesbian lawyers seeking social justice in the courts. So I can't blame anyone other than myself, or the external forces of oppression that define this society in general, for my past experiences of alienation. When I look back on those years, I see myself as a talented budding constitutional lawyer who was very immersed in a "white studies" mentality, not really feeling the need to be aware of her Latina consciousness, and not sufficiently surrounded by people in her profession who shared her identity as a latina/woman of color and lesbian, to make me seriously consider the need to explore intellectually my lack of consciousness of myself as a Latina lesbian. I remember for example, a gentle critique a friend offered of my manuscript for my first law review article article, which advocated a move in the direction of emphasizing more for legal strategy equality-based theorizing as opposed to the risky right to privacy. She said to me, "I think it would be even better if you talked more about class." I both understood her critique and at the same time I didn't. Some part of me knew that she was right, that by emphasizing class I could get at issues of race and sexual orientation, but even if she was right--at the time, 1985, I didn't feel confident of being able to put all of that into words in a world that was still struggling with just possibly recognizing that homosexuals were people and that sodomy laws effected unjust discrimination.
So when I say I've been disconnected, I get uncomfortable because I am taken back to the years of loss, that were still very recent, and then I have to access memories that painfully remind me that in my white studies mentality I might have once thought I could ignore in my work the linkages between race, class, gender and sexuality, but in my life experiences I could not. It has been powerful institutional settings within which the rules of white male supremacy have been played out that reminded me--while I might closet the sexual orientation part of my self and escape some discrimination that way, I can rarely, if ever, escape discrimination because of my race and and my ethnicity.4 Even more than the wonderful writings on"intersectionality,"5 it has been those painful experiences of mistreatment because of the multiplicity of factors that define who I am that have taught me that becoming comfortable with the idea of multiple consciousness6 is a learned process in itself. Thanks to my recent involvement in Lat/Crit theory I feel I have been able to come home to that part of myself, and to be resolved that I can never approach any subject, on gender or sexuality or whatever, without a relentless commitment to the ways in which those subjects intersect with race and class.
Of course, while it may be obvious that I as a Latina lesbian feel the need to embrace the perspective of multiple consciousness,
one might legitimately ask for this panel today, why is it important to non-minority gay and lesbian scholars? Simply, it's a
matter of statistics and social justice. Claims are being made that by the early part of the next century, this nation will be about
forty percent minority. If those projections are accurate, our scholars of gender and sexuality need to be asking themselves---are
the materials we use today, or the models of analysis we rely upon when we talk about sexuality, gender and sexual orientation,
or the categorizations of history, theory and identity we have become comfortable with, adequate for preparing our future
lawyers to handle the legal and social problems of a nation that is so racially defined? My sense is that some of you might be
able to say "yes, I think I am preparing my students/future lawyers for that kind of world." But my guess is that most of us in
this room cannot say yes. That is because the perspective of multiple consciousness, as I have stressed above, essentially
requires that one get out of his/her comfort zone, meaning learning to juggle the discourse and the feelings surrounding the web
of intersections that we are, that life is, that our identitites manifest in our relationships, in the classroom, our professional
associations, and in our scholarship.
Well, quite obviously, this is not an easy task, although I do think that the more we explore the interconnections within our
personal identities and some of our most significant relationships the task becomes easier. Multiple consciousness may mean
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
6--------------------------------------- accessing my /our experiences of interconnection to everything I see as being the parts/selves in
me--for example, my class, my education, that of my parents, my religious/cultural/moral/spiritual values, my
race/color/ethnicity, my current professional status, my privileges and disadvantages as a woman, of color, lesbian, professor,
wage-earner, property owner, citizen, voter and so on. While potentially daunting, it can also be quite entertaining as one comes
to terms with the consequence of accessing one's multiple selves--a more whole sense of one's self. Here I must offer the
powerful words in Natashia López's poem Trying to be Dyke and Chicana7 when she says: Dyk-ana/Dyk-icana/what do i call
myself/people want a name/a label a product/what's the first ingredient/the dominant ingredient/.... call me Chicana/walking
with whiteness/ into more whiteness/feeling my darkness/ call me Chicana/annoyed with being called Spanish /wishing
whiteness would understand/call me Chicana/call me Dyke/Chyk-ana. But as a matter of practice, for our teaching and our
scholarship, what does it mean to commit oneself to a relentless view of sexuality as intimately connected to issues of race, class,
gender, abilities, culture, and so on? What does it mean to present one's work with at least a modicum of sensitivity to that need
for a relentless view of interconnectedness? How does this question affect my own identity? How does it affect how I relate to
others in this profession, this academic community, this work I do as an activist lawyer, teacher and/or scholar? Let me offer the
example of the classroom setting. These kinds of questions are always close by when I teach a seminar called gender, sexuality
and the law. If my enrollment is higher on white than on women of color (as it is becoming so with the impact of Hopwood8 at
the University of Texas), I know I'm going to have a really tough time when I am working with a syllabus that is stressing the
importance of race. My students may manifest an unconsciousness resistance to the material and/or to my own identity.
Whereas when I have a more racially and sexually diverse group of students the reading materials and the ability of students of
color to identify with the issues help us all carry an easier load as we discuss the potentially divisive discourse of race and
sexuality.
I think these questions also encourage us to look at the aspect of privilege. Ask yourself, what is the perspective that dominates the discourse on gender and sexuality now? It is a discourse that speaks to my experience and that of others who are gay, lesbian, transgendered people of color? I know that the question of privilege as applied to this subject is bound to trigger for many of us in this room uncomfortable feelings, possibly defensiveness. To speak the truth does engage those risky emotions. And yet this critique is not about trying to alienate those who have been so important to my professional development, or those whom I see as my coalitional allies. I am reminded here, for example, of the importance of this perspective when I was asked to prepare materials for a panel on race and sexual orientation for the 8th annual Critical Race Theory workshop. In that setting, a similar issue was being raised, but now it was about the heterosexual dominance of the race critique having to confront the ways in which "the queer question" kept being sidetracked, derailed, or subverted because race-crits needed to have their consciousness raised around sexuality and the cultural fear of public sex talk. 9 Well for us here today, the privilege we have to confront is about race, about whiteness, and although it too can trigger discomfort and defensiveness for people, we are fortunately not without tools and models of self-critical analysis--offered by scholars like Peggy McIntosh who introduced the grid of white privilege,10 or Fran Ansley's "whose above and below the line"11 as a teaching tool in the classroom, or the work of Stephanie Wildman on the importance of revealing privilege12 in the legal academy.
Because the subject of sexual orientation and the law has "made it" in recent years, we can celebrate the fact that we don't have
to hide the subject behind titles like "human rights law." But the question for our future work centers on whether or not we are
in our litigation, our writing and our teaching truly addressing the totality of the experience of those who do not have the
privilege of being at the forefront of "queer theory and law." Does your work, for example, speak to the intelligent, well-read
activist person of color who might be male or female and lesbian or transgender? And for this we have to ask, what is the
starting point of analysis for those who are at the forefront of that kind of law?
If we look at this question from the perspective of privilege, we must know that the starting point of analysis of the lawyer, the academic and the lobbyist is vastly different from that of the activist, or the person on the streets, or the health care practitioner of color helping clients of color in a community clinic, even though there may be common grounds upon which the activist and the academic stand. Think of the critical activist saying to you, "As you write, please look at your privilege and the assumptions ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 7--------------------------------------- you make from your own perspective." If you cannot write or do not speak of their experience, at least adopt the scholarly convention of acknowledging that one's work may be limited by the choice of a narrow framework of experience, topic, or the perspective of the author's personal identity. What I am talking about here is confronting the cognitive dissonance that may resonate in our imagined person of color who is queer and activist and who then picks up our materials, or decides to visit our class one day. If they look at our materials and don't see themselves or their experiences, then our teaching materials are limited. If the assumptions a writer or teacher makes about any point on gender and sexuality does not create the possibility for their experience---if, for example, I cannot feel myself reflected in the writings as a Chicana lesbian, then those materials are limited; and our challenge is not to discover who is wrong and who to blame, but rather, how can we change that?
Our task is then, to ask ourselves how we should define our grids of analysis when we do our teaching and our writing about
either race or sexual orientation. If the person of color would have to say, "you don't know my world," then that scholar is
disadvantaged in the relevant, Latina/o studies, Asian-American studies, Transgender studies, African-American studies,
Native-American studies, and so on, in order to fix that. And if you are writing about issues that do affect queer people of color,
but the assumptions you make in your analysis don't speak to the person of color, then you are in no position for uttering the
word "we" when talking about the "gay and lesbian or queer community."
I was recently urged to reconsider the critical sense of this problem when I learned of a recent case which is being battled by a mostly Latina lesbian- managed and organized arts center in the city of San Antonio, Texas, which was recently the subject of a homophobic campaign by members of the Christian Coalition to have the City Arts Department cut their funding. As a multicultural organization the Esperanza (Hope) Center dedicates the arts to empower youth, gays and lesbians and poor women of color, especially the working poor who are sometimes refugees of violence in conflict-ridden parts of Latin America. They were targeted for distributing "pornographic" literature as they promoted a gay and lesbian film festival which focused heavily on the productions by and for lesbians of color. Here's the intersection dilemma which arose: the homophobic campaign was led not only by the Christian Coalition but supported by significant members of the wealthy white gay male owners of the San Antonio gay newspaper, who have been trying to displace Esperanza from the prominent leadership role it has had in the gay and lesbian community for over ten years. How's that for a theoretical question on how to draft a First Amendment/Romer v. Evans 13type of complaint? It is a targeting that is not just about an unpopular political group because of its association with gay politics, but an intersectional problem based on race, class, gender and sexual orientation. It is a tragic example of the divisiveness that will be exacerbated as long we pretend that the discourse of sexuality can be separated from the discourse of race, class and gender.
So let us be leaders in the political struggles of oppression by tending to these questions about the intersections between race and
sexual orientation, so that we aid in those scholarly inquiries that will produce healing, community and a commitment to
coalition, not divisiveness in the politics of identity.
1 Translate: Breathing freely.
2 Elvia R. Arriola, Sexual Identity and the Constitution, Homosexual
Persons as a Discrete and
Insular Minority, 14 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 263 (1988, 1992).
3478 U.S. 186 (1986).
4See Elvia R. Arriola, Welcoming the Outsider to an Outside Conference: Law
and the ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 8---------------------------------------
Multiplicities of Self, 2 Harvard Latino L. Rev.397 (1997).
5Kimberle Crenshaw, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A
Black Feminist
Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctriner, Feminist Theory and Antiracist
Politics, 1989 U. Chi.
Legal F. 139 (arguing against the notions that subordination can occur ,or can be analyzed, along
a single categorical axis such that legal theory erases the identity of
individuals who
experience discrimination at the intersection of race and sex, e.g., "black
woman." )
6 Angela Harris, Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, 42 Stan.
L. Rev. 581 (1989)
(urging multiplicity as a way to enhance the essentialist voices in
feminist theory that tend to
silence the perspective of women of color).
7 in Carla Trujillo, ed., Chicana Lesbians: The Girls Our Mothers Warned Us
About (1991).
8 Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) cert. denied ___
U.S. ___ (1996), 116
S.Ct. 2581 (1996).
9 Frank Valdes, [recent essay on public sex talk], 1 Univ. of Iowa J. of
Gender, Race and Justice
___ (1997).
10 Peggy McIntosh, White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account
of Coming to See
Correspondences Through Work in Women's Studies , in Leslie Bender and Daan ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 9---------------------------------------
Braveman,
Power Privilege and Law: A Civil Rights Reader 23 (1995).
11 This is a teaching tool Fran Ansley offered at a Society of American Law
Teachers'
Conference in the fall of 1993.
12 Stephanie Wildman, Privilege Revealed (1996).
13___ U.S. )___ (1996).
The Lack of Differences Between Gay/Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents: A Review of the Literature
Kevin F. McNeill
University of California, Riverside
Questions concerning this manuscript should be directed to the author via e-mail at: kevin-mcneill@worldnet.att.net.
Abstract
The (Lack of) Differences Between Gay/Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents: A Review of the Literature
A review of current demographics of families in the United States reveals that the traditional intact, two-parent family is yielding in prevalence to a myriad of other family forms (Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, & Gregory, 1995). While impossible to portray accurately, it is estimated that somewhere between 3% and 10% of the adult male population in the United States identifies as exclusively homosexual (Patterson, 1995a; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983). If we extend these percentages to females, it can be estimated that there are between 7 and 15 million gays and lesbians in the United States today. Further extending these estimates to include the immediate family members (brothers, sisters, parents, and perhaps even children), reveals that at least 50 million Americans are either themselves homosexual, or have a close family member who is (Bozett, 1989; Miller, 1979) . While these estimates may be somewhat suspect, they do reveal that gays and lesbians are becoming significantly more prevalent in our society or, at least, more visible.
Lesbian Mothers
Lesbians have been bearing and raising children for a long time, and they choose to parent for many of the same reasons as
heterosexual women (Pies, 1990). Yet, when a lesbian first expresses an interest in having a child, she is likely to encounter
negative reactions ranging from confusion to outright hostility (Rohrbaugh, 1989). Institutionalized beliefs presume that
childbearing is only to occur within the limited context of a heterosexual relationship. Homophobia and heterosexism are the
institutional reflections of social values that create and maintain the status quo, and these also operate to present lesbian
motherhood as an inherent contradiction (DiLapi, 1989). Although the American family is changing, it is clear that homophobia
is still a widespread phenomena.
An examination of lesbian motherhood requires a look at the social context within which women as a group currently exist in
the United States. It is important to recognize that, in addition to heterosexism, lesbians also face the oppression common to all
women, particularly in the areas of employment and housing (DiLapi, 1989). Yet, research has indicated that both groups are
still quite capable of raising their children in appropriate and healthy ways, and that significant differences do not generally e
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
10--------------------------------------- xist between them (Strong & Schinfeld, 1984). In fact, some findings suggest that there may be
important and beneficial outcomes from being the product of a lesbian family, such as increased appreciations for diversity and
expanded views of gender roles (Patterson, 1995b).
Previous research has also revealed that lesbian mothers are more similar than different from heterosexual mothers (Harris &
Turner, 1986). This raises important sociocultural and psychological issues. Should continued research demonstrate the
viability of these alternative family structures, it will necessitate the reformulation of currently accepted theories (e.g., social
learning) which prescribe that healthy development requires opposite-sex parents for the tasks of identification and modeling
(Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & Joseph, 1995).
Gay Fathers
The study of both homosexuality and fatherhood has increased dramatically in the recent past, yet the notion of "gay father" is a
newly emergent figure in the culture and literature (Bigner & Bozett, 1989a; Bozett, 1989). Gay males who are also fathers are
placed in a unique socio-cultural environment which is more complex than either that of the heterosexual or single homosexual
male (Bigner & Bozett, 1989a). The process of identity development for the gay father requires the reconciliation of two
seemingly polar extremes: that of the homosexual male and that of the father. Often, the attempt to combine these identities
places gay fathers in a type of marginal existence between the two (Robinson & Skeen, 1982).
Often, the most difficult decision for gay males is not whether or not to disclose their homosexuality to society, but whether or
not to do so to their children (Bozett, 1984). Their concerns center around the possibility that either their children will totally
reject them, or will have diminished respect and affection for them (Bigner & Bozett, 1989a). In fact, there does seem to be
some support for this (Bozett, 1988); however, other research has shown that disclosure of a homosexual identity may actually
strengthen relationships between sons and their fathers (Miller, 1979).
Most research concerning gay fathers can be grouped according to whether or not a comparison group was used and, if so, the
nature of that comparison group. Studies have been conducted where gay fathers were the sole focus of the study (e.g., Miller,
1979) and where they were compared to lesbian mothers (e.g., Wyers, 1987) or heterosexual fathers (e.g., Robinson & Skeen,
1982); additionally, one study (Harris & Turner, 1986) compared all four groups (gay and heterosexual fathers, as well as
lesbian and heterosexual mothers). Few differences were found between groups in these studies, and no significant differences
were found with regard to parental attitudes toward, or abilities in, child rearing and sexual orientation.
Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents
While most of the literature on child development has been based on those raised in heterosexual families, there is also a
substantial amount of empirical literature regarding those raised by gay and lesbian parents (e.g., Gottman, 1990; Riddle,
1978). Much of this research is in response to the growing visibility of lesbian and gay families, much like the single parent
family, as an alternative to the traditional heterosexual family. However, in contrast to the single-parent family, the increased
visibility of the gay parent families has not lead to a corresponding increase of their acceptability (Steckel, 1987).
Negative stereotypes concerning homosexuals continue to abound, including fears that they will molest children and/or seduce
them into their own "deviant" homosexual lifestyle (Riddle, 1978). Given this, it is not surprising that many heterosexuals,
particularly heterosexual parents, are concerned about possible consequences of contact between homosexual adults and
children. These fears continue even though the American Psychological Associations has declassified homosexuality as a
psychiatric disorder, and provides clear evidence that the issue is far from resolved.
Research concerning the children of lesbian and gay parents has focused on such things as gender identity (Green, 1978), gender
role development (Hoeffer, 1981), emotional development (Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, 1983), intelligence (Kirkpatrick,
Smith, & Roy, 1981), self-esteem (Huggins, 1989), and independence (Steckel, 1985). Much of this research is presented as a
response to negative societal opinion, and sexual orientation of the parent continues to be a major issue in public policy
formation (Patterson, 1992).
Sexual Orientation and Child Custody
Many gay parents are brought to the attention of authorities when a custody battle is being waged with an ex-spouse over their
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
11--------------------------------------- children. A gay parent seeking either custody, continuation of parental rights, or visitation
privileges is generally at a legal disadvantage because of the subjective criteria used by many judges to serve the "best interests"
of the child (Payne, 1978). It has been estimated that a lesbian mother's likelihood of obtaining custody of her biological
children is less that 50% (Falk, 1989). The odds that a gay mother or father will lose or be denied privileges increases when the
parent's sexual orientation is an issue in custody hearings (Hitchens, 1980). In fact, according to Polikoff (1986), a lesbian
mother must portray herself as being as close to the All-American norm as possible -- the image of her ideal heterosexual
counterpart -- and preferably asexual, if she is to have any chance of obtaining custody in a court dispute.
Few rights are as fundamental and accepted by society as the right of parents to raise children. Yet many courts have viewed the
prospect of gays and lesbians as parents in such a negative fashion that they have refused custody to some parents based solely
on their sexual orientation (Falk, 1989). Their reasons for doing this are varied, but generally center around the following
alleged concerns: (a) that these parents are less mentally fit, (b) that they will molest their children, (c) that their children will be
stigmatized by their peers, and (d) that their children are more likely to become gay or lesbian themselves (Falk, 1989; Kleber,
Howell, & Tibbits-Kleber, 1986; Rivera, 1987). However, previous studies have revealed no significant association between
sexual orientation and psychological characteristics relevant to parenting (Falk, 1989; Kleber, Howell, & Tibbits-Kleber, 1986;
Knight, 1983; Patterson, 1994).
Themes
The available research seems to cluster into three areas: (a) studies focusing on parenting by lesbian versus heterosexual mothers, (b) studies focusing on parenting by gay versus heterosexual fathers, and (c) those investigating what consequences, if any, these alternative family units have for the offspring raised in them. This paper takes advantage of the apparent separation of these themes within the published literature, and focuses on each one separately. This trend is continued in the discussion, which focuses on and integrates each theme separately. A general discussion follows, which integrates the conclusions of studies across themes. Finally, implications for social policy and suggestions for future research are presented. Research Summaries
Parenting Styles of Homosexual Versus Heterosexual Mothers
Shavelson, Biaggio, Cross, & Lehman (1980). The researchers conducting this study expressed concern that there was no
single, current, unifying theory in this area which has received overwhelming or even consistent support. As a consequence,
Shavelson et al. (1993) sought to bring some cohesiveness to this area. An adjunct purpose was to explore heterosexual and
homosexual women's(1) perceptions of themselves and of their parents in light of the relatively new concept of androgyny.
The sample used consisted of 26 self-identified lesbian women from the Idaho and Washington state areas, who were compared
with a control group consisting of 26 self-identified heterosexual women from the same areas. All participants were
administered the Schafer's Child Report of Behavior Inventory (CRBPI), and Bem's Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), as well as a
structured interview. The resulting data were analyzed using multiple regression which computed a stepwise solution.
Although lesbian women tended to rate themselves higher on the masculinity scale, results indicated that no significant predictor
or group of predictors could be isolated for lesbian women. Further, no set of parental behaviors or perceived sex-role
characteristics differentiated lesbian from heterosexual participants. The researchers stated that this, especially when combined
with the lack of agreement of previous research, can only lead one to conclude that the homosexual orientation in women does
not have a singular etiology (Shavelson et al., 1980).
Pagelow (1980). Single mothers, regardless of sexual orientation, continue to have common concerns regarding child custody,
housing, and employment (Pagelow, 1980). Using a phenomenological approach, the researchers sought to address and explore
the attitudes, behaviors, and reported experiences of lesbian mothers, as compared to heterosexual mothers, especially as
concerned the aforementioned areas.
The sample used in this study consisted of 23 self-identified single heterosexual mothers of 51 children, who were compared to
20 single lesbian mothers of 43 children. In depth interviews were conducted with each respondent, either face-to-face or over
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
12--------------------------------------- the telephone.
Results indicated that, compared to heterosexual mothers, lesbian mothers were awarded sole custody of their children less
often. However, incidents of discrimination in housing, employment, and the collection of child support did not differ
significantly between the two groups. It was found that lesbian and heterosexual mothers managed their lives and react to
everyday stressors in very similar ways. Lesbian mothers did, however, tend to own their own homes and operate their own
businesses at a higher rate than heterosexual mothers. The researchers explained this as a potential response to social pressure,
whereby these mothers became more independent as a coping mechanism to their societal oppression.
Kweskin & Cook (1982). To measure the self-described sex role behaviors and ratings of ideal sex role behavior of children
between lesbian and heterosexual mothers, Kweskin and Cook (1982) recruited 22 lesbian mothers and 22 heterosexual
mothers to participate in their study. This group was further divided by sex of their child, resulting in 11 mothers of female
children and 11 of male children for each group. All participants resided in a metropolitan area in the western United States, and
no significant differences were noted between the groups on the variables of age, income, and educational level.
Each participant completed two Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) questionnaires, one for self-description and one for description
of ideal behavior in a child of a designated sex. The resulting data were then analyzed using chi-square tests.
Results revealed no significant differences between the mothers in descriptions of their own sex role behavior. Additionally, no
significant differences were noted between groups in their rating of "ideal" child behavior. However, differences were noted
when the mothers were divided by sex-role classification rather than sexual orientation. Classifications assigned to an "ideal"
child tended to be consistent with the mother's self-ratings. That is, if the mother rated herself as masculine, then her ratings of
ideal child behavior tended also toward masculine.
No differences were found in the way mothers rated females as opposed to males. The researchers concluded that their results do
not support the notion suggesting that differences exist between homosexual and heterosexual mothers in terms of their sex-role
behavior and perceptions. Self descriptive sex role classification (i.e., masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated)
were found to be a more accurate indicator of an "ideal" child's assigned ratings than was either the mother's sexual orientation
or the child's biological sex.
Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, & Smith (1986). The focus of this study was to assess the psychosocial and psychosexual
aspects of development of children of homosexual mothers, as compared to those of heterosexual mothers. Sexual identity and
gender role behavior were evaluated utilizing a number of questionnaires.
The sample consisted of 50 homosexual women and their 56 children, who were matched with 40 heterosexual women and their
48 children on the variables of age, ethnicity, children's sex and age, marital status, income, and education. All children were
between the ages of 3 and 11 at the time of the study, and all participants resided within one of 10 states located on the east
coast and, whereas all homosexual mothers who met the criteria were accepted, the heterosexual participants were selected from
a pool of approximately 900 respondents.
Each mother was given an attitude assessment covering issues of divorce, sex roles, sex education of children, and child
discipline. Additionally, each was administered three measures of personality, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), the
Adjective Checklist, and the Jackson PRF-E, and asked to complete a son and/or daughter questionnaire for each child covering
such areas as sexual identity, peer group popularity, and preferred play activities. Each child was tested for intelligence utilizing
either the Weschler Preschool Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI), or the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children, and each was also
administered several tests of sexual identity and family relationships. Additionally, each child was interviewed concerning play
preferences, friendships, television preferences, and thoughts about life as an adult.
Results indicated that lesbian mothers scored higher on self-confidence, dominance, and exhibition, whereas heterosexual
mothers scored higher on abasement (expressing feelings of inferiority) and deference. Also, sons of heterosexual mothers were
more likely to have experienced more than one period of separation from their father, while sons of lesbian mothers typically
had experienced only one period of separation. Finally, lesbians reported having spent fewer daytime hours holding or touching
their infant sons than heterosexual mothers.
With regard to the children's results, no significant differences were found in the areas of IQ, or in the results of any of the
family relationship scales. Additionally, the groups did not differ on favorite types of TV programs, sex of favorite TV
character, or favorite games or toys. Finally, no differences were found between the groups on peer group relations. However,
with regard to sexual identity, girls of lesbian mothers were much more likely to express an interest in traditionally masculine
occupations than their matched counterparts.
The researchers concluded that the daughters showed a wider range of gender role behaviors than the sons, but not beyond the
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
13--------------------------------------- normal range. Daughters of lesbian mothers were less traditionally feminine than those of
heterosexual mothers, but no conflict in gender identity was found for any of the groups.
Peters & Cantrell (1991). After reviewing the empirical research, Peters and Cantrell (1991) concluded that sexual orientation
cannot be explained in terms of a single factor. Based on this, they designed a study to assess what differences, if any, existed
between lesbian and heterosexual women.
Their sample consisted of adult women volunteers from a university undergraduate course and a regional organization
concerned with lesbian issues. Sexual orientation was determined by self report of the participants. Age matched pairs were
randomly selected from a pool of 134 lesbian women and 105 heterosexual women, resulting in two groups of 46 women each.
The test instrument used consisted of 100 questions encompassing four areas: family/demographic, attitudes, past sexual
experiences, and current sexual experiences. There was no time limit allotted for completion.
Results indicated no significant differences between groups on past negative childhood experiences with males or positive
experiences with females. Additionally, no differences were found on reported incidents of childhood sexual abuse or incest.
Current attitudes toward homosexuality were also not significantly different between groups. Finally, lesbian responses with
regard to distance in parental relationships did not differ from those of heterosexuals.
The researchers concluded that, excepting the sexual object of choice, these results indicate that there are very few differences
regarding lesbian and heterosexual women, particularly with regard to parental relations and early sexual experience, as well as
current attitudes and sexual experience.
Patterson (1995a). While it is generally recognized that, in heterosexual families, the allocation of household labor (cooking,
laundry, etc.) and childcare still occurs along gendered lines, to what extent do lesbian families allocate the labor involved in
household maintenance and child care? Further, what implications, if any, do these choices have for the children in their care?
Patterson (1995a) sought to investigate and answer these questions, by assessing the division of household labor among
biological and nonbiological lesbian mothers, and the degree of psychosocial adjustment among their children.
The sample used in this study consisted of 26 families headed by lesbian couples with at least one child between 4 and 9 years
of age. All families resided in the greater San Francisco Bay area. The mothers were predominantly white, in their late 30s, well
educated, and relatively affluent. The test instruments used for the parents consisted of a "Who Does What?" measure and a
Marital Adjustment Test. All children completed a Child Behavior Questionnaire.
Results indicated that lesbian couples reported sharing household tasks and family decision making equally, but biological
mothers reported greater involvement in child care, whereas nonbiological mother reported spending longer hours in paid
employment. Most lesbian couples reported high satisfaction with their present relationships. Couples reported more satisfaction
when child care was evenly shared between the two mothers. The researchers concluded that models of fairness in the division of
labor at home are important influences on children's development, and that children who observe equal distributions of
responsibilities may enjoy developmental advantages.
McNeill, Rienzi, & Kposowa (1998). Although lesbian mothers appear to far more similar to than different from heterosexual
mothers with regard to their parenting styles and abilities, they are still awarded sole custody of their children at a rate far less
than their heterosexual counterparts. To further explore this issue, McNeill, Rienzi, and Kposowa (1998) sought to assess if
differences existed between these two groups on dimensions of family and relationship dysfunction, parent-child relationships,
and knowledge of the parental role -- areas thought to be of importance to officials making custody decisions.
Their sample consisted of 59 women (24 lesbian and 35 heterosexual), who were all self-reported mothers of at least one child
(average 1.38 for the lesbian sample, and 1.89 for the heterosexual sample). The test instruments administered were the Index of
Family Relations, the Index of Parental Attitudes, the Family Awareness Scale, and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
Results indicated that, overall, lesbian and heterosexual mothers do not differ significantly on any of these dimensions assesses.
However, although mean differences did not manifest between the two groups, the lesbian sample did exhibit more variation.
The researchers stipulated that lesbians may represent a more diverse population with regard to their adjustment, stress, and
competence in the parental role, a finding not support by previous research.
Parenting Styles of Homosexual Versus Heterosexual Fathers
Miller (1979). Miller (1979) sought to document the nature and quality of fathering abilities of homosexual men. Using a
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
14--------------------------------------- snowball sampling technique, 40 homosexual fathers and 14 of their children were gathered
and depth interviews were conducted. All participants were white, college educated, and predominantly middle-class.
Specifically, the researcher addressed the following issues: (a) Do gay fathers have children to cover their homosexuality? (b)
Do they molest their children? (c) Do their children turn out to be disproportionately homosexual (these results are given in the
section regarding children of homosexuals)? and (d) Do they expose their children to homophobic harassment?
Results did not substantiate any of the hypotheses. There was no evidence to support the notion that gay men father children to
cover their homosexuality. Additionally, evidence was presented indicating that fears of child sexual abuse by gay fathers are
not warranted. Finally, and contrary to prevailing judicial opinion, gay fathers do not expose their children to excessive
homophobic harassment. However, the researcher did note that warm relationships with children may tend to offset the often
lackluster positions of homosexuals in a heterosexual marriage, and that this may provide some form of compensation to them.
Mallen (1983). How do homosexual males perceive themselves in terms of their own sexuality? While it is certainly possible
that they may see themselves in terms more typical of the opposite sex, the picture is far from clear. Mallen (1983), concerned
that sex-role stereotypes held by homosexuals were being ignored in the literature, decided to investigate this phenomenon.
Her sample consisted of 60 participants assigned to two groups (n = 30 for each group) based on their self-ratings on the
seven-point Kinsey scale. This scale ranged from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). Those rating
themselves as 0-2 were considered heterosexual, while those rating themselves 4-6 were considered homosexual. Within this
sample, no participant rated himself as 3. The two groups were matched as much as possible on the variables of age and level of
education.
Each participant was administered a questionnaire designed to solicit attitudes with respect to aspects of masculinity, femininity,
and sex-role stereotyping. Participants were given the questionnaire in groups of 10, and a standardized set of instructions was
read to all groups. The resultant data were analyzed by principle components analyses, and the solution produced three factors
accounting for 86% of the total variance (sex-role stereotypic behavior, ideal self, and expressiveness).
It was predicted that if sex-role stereotyping occurred, then female role figures would be attributed to stereotypic feminine
characteristics and male role figures would be attributed to stereotypic male characteristics. It was also predicted that sex role
stereotyping would be particularly characteristic of heterosexuals. Results indicated that there was a tendency for homosexual
males to perceive less discrepancy between the sexes than heterosexual males. Of the two groups, only homosexual males
considered androgynous traits desirable for both males and females. Both groups tended to reject extreme masculinity -- they did
not see themselves as extremely masculine, nor did they wish to be so. Additionally, both groups depicted their fathers in
extremely unfavorable terms. Both groups saw themselves as equally distant from their mothers.
The researcher concluded that these results indicate that sex-stereotyping was more prevalent in heterosexuals, while
homosexuals tended to value expressive traits more highly. With regard to other perceptions of masculinity and femininity
however, heterosexual and homosexual males tend to be much more similar than different.
Skeen & Robinson (1984). Noting that, to date, no empirical findings existed which focused on the backgrounds of gay fathers
before they became involved in a heterosexual relationship and fathered a child, Skeen and Robinson (1984) sought to explore
some of the data on the early family backgrounds and relationships between homosexual men who later became fathers and
their parents.
Their sample consisted of 30 participants randomly selected from a larger population of 285 who had responded to a nationwide
request distributed through a homosexual organization. Representation was evenly distributed from all regions of the United
States, and the children of these fathers ranged in age from 1 to 34 years. All fathers were administered a questionnaire designed
by the researchers to assess their current relationships, perceptions of their mother's and father's acceptance of their
homosexuality, as well as perceptions of their family atmosphere during childhood. All responses were scored on a Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (extremely unsatisfactory) to 5 (extremely satisfactory).
Results indicated that the early family backgrounds of gay fathers were generally positive. Most fathers grew up in intact homes
where heterosexual relationships were modeled, pleasant memories existed, and marital discord was not commonplace. Most
fathers rated both their children and lovers as equally important.
Skeen and Robinson (1984) concluded that their findings question the contention that disturbed parental relationships are
necessary or even contributory conditions for homosexuality. However, they acknowledged that it is difficult to determine what
effect, if any, positive early family experiences have on subsequent decisions to father children. ------------National Journal of
Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 15---------------------------------------
Bigner & Jacobsen (1989a). In an attempt to bring some clarity to the neglected area concerning research with homosexual
fathers, Bigner and Jacobson (1989a) selected 66 males (33 homosexual and 33 heterosexual), each of whom was the father of
at least two children. The participants were asked to complete the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory, a scale which consists of 36
questions within five factors (involvement, limit-setting, responsiveness, guidance, and intimacy). Total variance for these
factors ranged from a low of .64 (intimacy) to a high of .86 (guidance). The collected data were analyzed using t-tests.
Analyses showed no significant differences between groups on factors of involvement or intimacy, but revealed that differences
between groups on the factors of limit setting, responsiveness, and reasoning guidance were significant. Within these factors,
significant differences were noted for 13 of the 36 items tested (each factor contained at least one item).
The researchers presented two possible explanations for these differences: (a) that gay parents may feel more guilt due to
sensitivity about their own sexuality, and therefore strive to be better parents; and (b) that gay fathers may be more androgynous
in their parenting orientation, providing them with more parenting options than heterosexual parents. They concluded that these
results seem to indicate that sexual orientation has no appreciably harmful effects on a gay father's ability to parent. However,
Bigner and Jacobson (1989a) urge caution in generalizing these results, due to the difficulty in accurately assessing the "gay
lifestyle"(p. 184).
Bigner & Jacobsen (1989b). The enigma of gay fatherhood presents males in this group with a more unique and complex
social-psychological environment than heterosexual males, particularly relative to identity concerns, acceptance of self, and
parenting and custody issues (Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989b). The focus of this study was to provide empirically-based data with
respect to parenting behaviors of self-identified gay and nongay men utilizing a standardized instrument. The researchers sought
to explore the following issue: Are there specific dimensions of parenting behavior that differentiate gay from nongay fathers?
To answer this, the researchers selected 66 males (33 homosexual and 33 heterosexual), each of whom was the father of at least
two children. The participants were administered the Value of Children (VOC) questionnaire, which consists of 21 questions
within six factors (tradition-continuity-security, parenthood satisfaction, role motivations, happiness and affection, goals and
incentives, and social status), all scored on a Likert-type scale and designed to address the positive values of children in adults'
lives. The resulting data were analyzed using standard t-tests.
Significant differences were noted between the groups on the subscales of social status and tradition-continuity-security, with
gay fathers scoring higher on the former and heterosexual fathers scoring higher on the latter. These were interpreted as
indicative of a traditional attitude toward family life, a way to protect against societal rejection, and a desire to achieve some
kind of social status and acceptability in the community. No differences were noted on the scales of parenthood satisfaction, role
motivations, happiness and affection, and goals and incentives. Additionally, the two groups did not differ on the overall scale.
Bigner and Jacobsen (1989b) concluded that, overall, parenthood is experienced for similar reasons by both homosexual and
heterosexual men, but urge caution in generalizing these results until replications can be done.
Bigner & Jacobsen (1992). The study examined parenting behaviors and attitudes toward the roles of fathering among gay and
nongay fathers. Specifically, the study focused on the following questions: Are there differences in parenting styles as well as
attitudes toward the fathering role of gay and nongay fathers?
There were 24 self-identified gay fathers and 29 non-gay fathers in the study. There were two test instruments used. The first
was the Adult Responses to Child Behavior, which consisted of 15 slides with narration from which three types of responses
were solicited -- Adult-Oriented (assertion of adult power over child), Child-Oriented (concern for child's development or
learning), and Task-Oriented (emphasizing immediate problem resolution, independent of effect on parent or child). The second
instrument was the Attitudes Towards Fathering Scale, consisting of 18 items measuring traditional father role attitudes, and 18
measuring developmental attitudes, all scored on a Likert-scale ranging from one (strongly agree) to five (strongly disagree). All
participants completed both questionnaires.
Both groups tended to hold developmental attitudes toward their fathering role. Of the 36 items tested, seven were found to
discriminate between gay and nongay fathers -- five of which measured traditional attitudes and two which measured
developmental attitudes.
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
16--------------------------------------- The overall finding was that gay and nongay fathers are much more similar than different with
regard to their responsiveness and attitudes toward the fathering role. There were almost no differences with regard to degree of
involvement with their children, degree of intimacy with children, problem solving, encouragement of autonomy, and the ways
in which child rearing problems are handled. The researchers concluded that this firmly disallows the alleged negative impact of
gay fathers on child growth and development. Sexual orientation has no overall pertinent bearing on the way fathers react to
child behaviors, nor on the way they conceptualize the fathering role.
Crosbie-Burnett & Helmbrect (1993). There can be little doubt that gay fathers, as a group, have become more open about their
combined gay and father identities, yet there seems to be very little in the literature documenting this phenomenon. In an effort
to begin rectifying this, and to dispel, if applicable, negative myths associated with this group, Crosbie-Burnett and Helmbrecht
(1993) designed a study to assess the family dynamics surrounding gay fathers and stepfathers.
Their sample consisted of 48 white gay males, each either the biological or stepfather of one child (male = 30, female = 18), and
most lived with their biological mothers (74%) and visited the male household during the study. The test instruments included
the Stepfamily Adjustment Scale (SAS), which measures the quality of relationships between family members and the various
dynamics unique to stepfamilies (unresolved emotions from prior relationships, problems related to the child's movement
between two households, quality of the steprelationship, quality of the biological parent-child relationship, happiness in the
couple relationship, family cohesion, overall happiness with the family, and, for adolescents only, self-efficacy with respect to
the attainment of needs). Scoring was accomplished on the basis of a four-point Likert scale.
Results indicated that the key family dynamics revolved around the integration of the stepfather into the family and his
subsequent relationship with the child. Additionally, it was found that couple happiness between the two fathers was
independent of their perceived relationships with their children, and negatively correlated with the perceived relationship
between the biological mother and the biological father's male partner -- that is, the better the gay couple relationship, the worse
the relationship between the gay "stepfather" and the biological mother.
The researchers concluded that these findings are consistent with the body of research concerning family dynamics of
heterosexual stepfamily relationships, particularly those in which the children were male. It is common for strong and positive
feelings between members of a stepfamily often lead to feelings of jealousy in prior spouses, especially during the early
adjustment stages of family disintegration and reorganization. However, Crosbie-Burnett and Helmbrecht (1993) caution
against implying causation, due to the correlational nature of their study. They urge replication with larger samples, using
lesbian mothers in addition to gay fathers, and analyses utilizing qualitative methods.
Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach (1995). A primary social and scientific concern with regard to gay and lesbian parenting
surrounds the issues of whether or not children of these parents are especially likely to become gay themselves and, if so, why.
This issue has arisen most vividly with the context of child custody cases. In an attempt to assess and clarify this issue, Bailey et
al. (1995) interviewed gay fathers their adult sons, focusing particularly on the sexual orientation of the sons.
Their sample consisted of 55 gay or bisexual fathers and 43 of their adult sons. All participants resided in the areas of Chicago,
St. Louis, Milwaukee, Dallas, Antonio, and Houston. Sexual orientation of fathers was determined by self-report, and each
father was asked to report their perceived certainty of their son's sexual orientation on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(completely certain) to 4 (uncertain). Additionally, each son was asked to rate their own sexual orientation, on a Likert-type
scale ranging from 0 (completely heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual). The resulting data were analyzed using t-tests.
Results indicated that the fathers were amazingly accurate in predicting the sexual orientation of their sons (only one father was
incorrect, for an accuracy rate of 98%), and that sexual orientation in the sons was not positively correlated with the length of
time that the sons had lived with their fathers.
Bailey et al. (1995) concluded that, although they could not completely exclude the possibility of father-to-son environmental
transmission, results of their study suggest that, even if such an influence exists, it is not large.
Development of Children of Homosexual Versus Heterosexual Parents
Weeks, Derdeyn, & Langman (1975). Concerned over the lack of attention which had been paid to children of homosexuals
and the potential problems they might experience as a consequence, Weeks, Derdeyn, and Langman (1975) sought to explore
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
17--------------------------------------- what influence, if any, did the sexual orientation of the parent(s) play in the sexual and social
development of the child? To do this, two children (one male and one female) of opposite-sex homosexual parents were
administered projective tests common to psychotherapy. The parents of both children were divorced, and both children were
currently living with their biological mothers.
While the researchers noted that it would be impossible, based on their very limited sample, to distinguish factors specifically
related to parental homosexuality, they did conclude that the turmoil experienced by the children as a consequence of their
parents' sexual orientation was not unique and did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual parents who have conflicts.
It is worth noting, however, that while the researchers concluded that the problems of children of homosexuals may not be
related specifically to parental sexual orientation, there was evidence of maladaptive patterns of development in both children.
Additionally, it is also worth noting that the sample used in this study was extremely small (n = 2), and therefore the conclusions
reached should be interpreted with extreme caution.
Miller (1979). Miller (1979) sought to document the nature and quality of fathering abilities of homosexual men. Among the
issues he sought to explore was a determination of whether or not children of homosexual fathers turn out to be
disproportionately homosexual. A more extensive presentation of the sample, as well as the methodology, used in this study is
given in the section on research regarding gay fathers.
Results did not support the notion that children, specifically sons, of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual that their
counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. The data suggested that second generation homosexuals are rare, and that
homosexual fathers tended to show remarkably little anxiety about their children's eventual or actual orientation. However,
Miller (1979) noted that stating that children of gay fathers were within the normal range of conventional development was not
to say that their lives were problem free. The very nature of behavior outside of currently accepted social norms, as evidenced
by their father's sexual orientation, invites consequent tension to which the children are also not immune.
Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Roy (1981). Realizing that current custody proceedings are hampered by a lack of judicial and clinical
experience, as well as a lack of empirical data on the development of children of lesbian parents, Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy
(1981) sought to explore the existence or nonexistence of distinguishing factors between children of heterosexual and lesbian
parents.
The sample consisted of 40 children, aged 5 to 12, divided equally into two groups according to their mother's self-identified
sexual orientation. Each child was administered the WISC, Holtzman Inkblot Technique, and Human Figure Drawing tests.
Additionally, each was seen by a child psychologist for one 45-minute semistructured playroom session, which included
questions about early memories, dreams, future plans, and gender related issues. The psychologist was not informed of the
participant's group membership until all evaluations were completed.
Results indicated a remarkably even distribution between the two groups. Neither the child's responses nor the type or frequency
of pathology differed as a function of their mother's sexual orientation. Results of behavior in the playroom revealed no
indication of differences between the two groups. The researchers concluded that parental orientation is not a reliable predictor
of either childhood behavior or subsequent gender-role preference.
Hoeffer (1981). Due to the prevalence of stereotypes and myths regarding lesbian-mother families, Hoeffer (1981) sought to
develop research which would provide the public and professionals with a more reality-based understanding of lesbian mothers
and their children. The study focused on the influence of lesbian versus heterosexual mothers' on the children's acquisition of sex
role traits and behaviors.
Their sample consisted of 20 self-identified lesbian and 20 heterosexual single mothers from the San Francisco Bay area, as well
as their only or oldest child. The two groups of mothers were matched on the variables of education and occupational category,
and relationship status. Children ranged in ages from 6 through 9, and all had been separated from their fathers prior to 5 years
of age. They were matched on the variables of gender and age, so that 10 boys and 10 girls of the same ages comprised the
comparison groups. Each participant was administered the Block's Toy Preference Test, with the mothers being asked to rate the
toys according to those that she most preferred, somewhat preferred, and least preferred for her child. Responses were analyzed
using ANOVAs.
Results revealed no significant differences between the two groups of children as a function of the mother's sexual orientation.
Irrespective of the mother's orientation, boys scored significantly higher on sex-typed masculine and lower on sex-typed
feminine toy preferences than girls. Additionally, lesbian and heterosexual mothers did not differ significantly on
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
18--------------------------------------- encouragement of play behavior for boys and girls. However, while lesbian mothers did not
differ significantly for sex-typed masculine or feminine toys, the heterosexual mother's means scores for sex-typed feminine toys
was significantly higher for girls, and their mean preference scores for sex-typed masculine toys was significantly higher for
boys. Both groups of mothers reported that the most frequent reason for selecting a particular toy was because the child had
requested it, rather than to encourage play with a particular type of toy.
The researchers concluded that, irrespective of the mother's sexual orientation, both boys and girls preferred toys traditionally
associated with their gender. Also irrespective of sexual orientation, mothers were more willing to encourage play with neutral
toys than with sex-typed ones. The children seemed to have equal if not more influence on their mother's choices than the
mothers had on the child's choices. In short, the most striking findings of this study surrounded the similarities, rather than the
differences, between these two groups.
Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner (1982). Concerned that research to date had neglected an analysis of the lesbian mother as parent,
Miller et al. (1982) sought to compare the social settings provided to children by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Specifically,
they designed a study to assess the occupational, educational, and financial statuses of these two groups of women. Additionally,
both group's functional conduct as caregivers, as observed through controlled settings involving children, were examined.
The sample used consisted of 34 lesbian and 47 heterosexual mothers who had custody of their children. The participants were
obtained through a feminist recreation center and Parent-Teacher Association meetings in a large western mountain city. Each
respondent was asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire and respond to a short slide presentation representing
several parent-child situations.
The data revealed that the child in a lesbian home resided in a considerably less affluent setting than a child in a heterosexual
household. Also, lesbian mothers appeared to be more child-oriented in their responses to children. Further, lesbian mothers
tended to assume more of a principal role in child care responsibility regardless of whether or not this role was shared with a
live-in partner.
The researchers concluded that these results cast doubt on the stereotypical notion that heterosexual mothers are more child
oriented than lesbian mothers. On the contrary, proportionately more lesbian mothers reflected a child-oriented stance than their
heterosexual counterparts. Clearly, the majority of lesbian mothers see themselves as intimately involved in parenting.
Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter (1983). Golombok et al. (1983) addressed the issue that neither the theories nor the empirical
data allow a clear-cut expectation of the consequences for children being reared by a lesbian parent. Their investigation was
designed to directly study what happens in these circumstances, and compared lesbian households to those of single-parent
households where the parent was a heterosexual mother.
The sample was obtained through advertisements in a range of gay and single-parent publications, as well as through contacts
with gay and single-parent organizations. There were 27 families in each group, with 37 children in the lesbian group and 38
children in the heterosexual group. The children ranged in ages from 5 to 17 years. The main source of data was collected
through individual standardized interviews with both the mothers and their children. Additionally, each mother was also
administered a malaise questionnaire of emotional disturbance.
Results indicated no significant differences between children raised in lesbian households and those brought up by a
heterosexual parent, with respect to gender identity, sex role behavior, or sexual orientation. Additionally, it was noted that there
was considerable overlap between both groups of children with regard to individual sex role behaviors. Both the findings on
patterns of friendships and those on sexual feelings gave no suggestion that there was likely to be an increased rate of
homosexuality among the children of lesbian mothers.
Golombok et al. (1983) concluded that the results of their study failed to show any differences between the groups of children,
and that perhaps the quality of family relations, as well as the pattern of upbringing that is a more important consideration for
psychosexual development.
Harris & Turner (1986). Noting that most gay/lesbian parents are concerned about their parenting and their children, Harris
and Turner (1986) sought to provide insight using a more representative sample than had been used in previous studies. The
sample included ten self-identified gay males, 13 lesbian families, two heterosexual male single parents, and 14 heterosexual
female single parents. While the majority were white and educated, the sample used did display more diversity than had been
utilized previously.
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
19--------------------------------------- The test instrument was designed to solicit responses on a number of variables including sex
roles, problems concerning single parenting, and their willingness to be interviewed, as well as general demographics such as
age, ethnicity, occupation, etc. Additionally, questions asked only of gay/lesbian participants included their personal behavior
and family history relevant to homosexuality (including self-identification), knowledge and reactions of spouses/children to their
homosexuality, and problems and benefits their homosexuality had created for their children. The questionnaires were
anonymous and color-coded, and both types were available to make it possible for gay/lesbian parents to participate without
publicly identifying themselves.
The researchers concluded that there were surprisingly little differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents. With the
exception that homosexual parents tended to make more of an effort to provide an opposite sex-role model for their children,
there were no significant differences in the relationships of the parents with their children.
Results indicated that being gay is not incompatible with effective parenting, and it is certainly not the major issue of concern
with regard to parents' relationships with their children.
Pennington (1987). Due to a fear of reprisals and the hostility or insensitivity of professionals, many lesbian families are
reluctant to seek help for family or individual problems -- to do so could be tantamount to being declared unfit mothers.
Pennington (1987) sought to address and discuss the major issues confronted by children living in lesbian mother households.
The sample included 32 children from 28 ethnically diverse families headed by lesbian mothers. These children were seen by
the researcher on an outpatient basis at a psychotherapy clinic located in San Francisco over the course of 10 years. The typical
length of therapy ranged from six months to one year. Her results are based on individual interviews conducted with both the
mothers and their children.
Generally, the researcher found that the more open and relaxed the mother was with regard to her sexual orientation, the more
accepting the child was of the idea of having a lesbian mother. The more realistic and understanding the mother was of the
issues and potential problems surrounding her orientation, the more successful was the child's adjustment. Pennington (1987)
found that there is no inherent pathology associated with lesbian mother families; rather, the central focus is the profound impact
from a homophobic culture.
The researcher concluded that children in lesbian families experience problems and psychopathology at a rate not unlike that of
children of heterosexual mother families, and that these problems are not necessarily correlated with the mother's sexual
orientation. Rather, what appears most important is the quality of mothering, and the quality of the relationships in the
household. The primary problem was not the mother's orientation but, rather, societal homophobia.
Bozett (1988). Noting that it is likely that there are between one and two million natural fathers who are also gay, Bozett
(1988), realized that research in this substantive area is necessary in order to provide practitioners in helping disciplines with an
accurate knowledge base so that they can be of benefit to members of this population who seek their assistance.
The data for this study were obtained through unstructured depth interviews of 19 children of gay fathers. These participants
were gathered through advertisements in commercial, gay, and university newspapers in the San Francisco and Oklahoma City
areas, as well as through referral by colleagues and friends known by the researcher. Information was gathered with regard to
how the children found out about the fathers' homosexuality, how they felt about it, what their reactions were, and who they had
told and not told and why. The goal of the research was to generate and suggest, rather than directly test, hypotheses about this
phenomenon.
Results indicated that none of the children expressed any difficulty with their father in his parental role; rather, children's
concerns focused primarily on the father's gay identity. In general, it was discovered that the more negatively the children
perceived societal reaction to homosexuality to be, the more strongly they assumed society would react negatively to them on
the basis of their implied social identity. Also, the children's acceptance of their father as gay was directly related to their own
perceptions of society's attitudes toward homosexuality.
Bozett (1988) concluded that it is possible that children of gay fathers may experience much stress related to their fathers's gay
identity, if they also perceive that society has a negative attitude toward homosexuality. However, they may need to be helped to
realize that it may not be their father's homosexuality in itself, so much as it is society's, and thus their own, reactions toward it.
They may need help recognizing that they have no control over society's viewpoint, and that they have power to control their
own lives in relation to their father. Children need to be informed that the myths and stereotypes surrounding homosexuality are
not representative of most gay men or gay fathers. ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1
------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 20---------------------------------------
Huggins (1989). Concerned that children of lesbian mothers may suffer social stigma in peer group relations as a result,
Huggins (1989) decided to investigate this issue. The study of the adolescent child is crucial because this stage of development
is when stigmatization is most obvious and object choice and gender identity are easier to confirm. To facilitate this, the
researcher designed a study comparing two group of adolescents on the basis of their mother's sexual orientation.
The sample consisted of 36 white participants residing in southern California, aged 13 to 19 years, and divided equally into two
groups, each containing nine males and nine females. The test instrument used consisted of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventory (SEI), which consists of 58 items divided into five subscales (general self, social self-peers, home-parents, lie scale,
and school-academic), and designed specifically to measure self-esteem. In addition to completing the questionnaire, both the
adolescents and mothers were interviewed by the researcher.
Results revealed no significant differences in self-esteem scores between children of lesbian mothers and those of heterosexual
mothers. These scores were consistent with each other independent of the child's gender, indicating that self-esteem within a
family unit is influenced by factors other than gender.
Huggins (1989) concluded these results suggest that the mother's sexual object choice does not appear to influence negatively
the self-esteem of her adolescent children. The assumption that children of lesbian mothers are socially stigmatized by their
mother's sexual orientation was not borne out by this study.
Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach (1995). As stated previously, Bailey et al. (1995) have noted that a primary social and
scientific concern with regard to gay and lesbian parenting surrounds the issues of whether or not children of these parents are
especially likely to become gay themselves and, if so, why. The researchers developed a study to assess the validity of these
concerns, and a description of their sample, as well as the methodology used, appears in the section concerning homosexual
fathers.
Results indicated that 9% (n = 4) of the sons (N = 43) identified their sexual orientation as either homosexual or bisexual.
Additionally, they found sexual orientation in the sons was not positively correlated with the length of time that the sons had
lived with their fathers. The researchers noted that this is consistent with previous research (e.g., Patterson, 1992), and that this
figure does not differ significantly from the incidence of homosexuality in the general population, which they stated ranges from
1% to 10%, depending on the stringency of the criterion. Bailey et al. (1995) concluded that, although they could not
completely exclude the possibility of father-to-son environmental transmission, results of their study suggest that, even if such
an influence exists, it is not large.
Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & Joseph (1995). Flaks et al. (1995) expressed concern that, to date, most studies in the area of
gay and lesbian parenting examine the children of divorced lesbians, and that research surrounding planned lesbian families is
quite scarce. The purpose of their research was to expand upon this limited research.
The sample used in this study consisted of lesbian couples (n = 15) raising children born to them through donor insemination.
These couples were matched with heterosexual parent families on the variables of age, sex, ethnicity, income, and education.
The researchers examined the families using a broad range of outcome measures, including intellectual and behavioral
assessments, as well as evaluations of the parent's relationship quality and parenting skills.
The test instruments included the Child Behavior Checklist (CBC), the Teacher's Report Form (TRF), and the Spanier Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (DAS). Additionally, the children were administered either the WPPSI-R (for those under six years of age) or
the WISC-R (for those aged six or older) to assess cognitive functioning, while the parents were administered the Parent
Awareness Skills Survey to assess the sensitivity and effectiveness with which the parent responded to typical child-care
situations. The hypotheses were that there would be no significant differences between the groups.
Results supported the hypothesis that children of homosexual and heterosexual parents are remarkably similar, especially in the
areas of cognitive functioning and behavioral development. No gender differences were found and scores for both boys and girls
in the homosexual and heterosexual parent groups were very similar. Analysis using the PASS revealed that lesbian couples
were more aware of the skills necessary for effective parenting than their heterosexual counterparts. Flaks et al. (1995)
concluded that psychologically healthy children need not be raised by opposite-sex, heterosexual parents.
Patterson (1995c). Patterson (1995c) recognized that, in heterosexual families, the allocation of household labor (cooking,
laundry, etc.) and childcare still occurs along gendered lines and investigated the extent to which these divisions occurred in
lesbian families. Among her interests was a determination of what implications, if any, these choices had for the children in thei
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
21--------------------------------------- r care. A more extensive presentation of the samples and methodology were presented in the
section concerning lesbian mothers.
Results indicated that children's adjustments were more favorable when child care was evenly distributed between the two
women. Additionally, Patterson (1995a) concluded that models of fairness in the division of labor at home are important
influences on children's development and that children who observe equal distributions of responsibilities may enjoy
developmental advantages.
Tasker & Golombok (1995). A common practice within the judicial system is to deny lesbian women custody of their
biological children, on the grounds that the children would develop atypical gender identities, manifest behavioral and
emotional problems, and experience difficulties in peer relationships (Tasker & Golombok, 1995). In essence, there resides
within the court system the belief that lesbian mothers are incapable of being or becoming effective parents. The goal of the
researchers in this study was to provide insight into life in a lesbian family from the perspective of a group of young adults who
grew up in one.
A longitudinal study was conducted utilizing two groups of single mothers, one lesbian and the other heterosexual, each
consisting of 27 mothers and their 39 children. The groups were matched demographically on the variables of ethnicity,
education, and social class. The main source of data collection consisted of individual interviews conducted in 1983, and again
in 1991-1992.
Results indicated that all the children in the sample had functioned well throughout childhood and adolescence. Children from
lesbian families were no more likely to experience peer stigma than their counterparts from heterosexual families, nor were they
any more likely to experience anxiety or depression. Additionally, there was no difference between the groups concerning
engagement in at least one instance of same-sex gender attraction. The researchers concluded that these results do not support
the commonly held assumption concerning parental transmission of homosexuality, nor do they support the notion that lesbian
parents are necessarily worse parents as a consequence of their sexual orientation.
Patterson & Mason (in press). Remarking that little is known about contacts of lesbian mothers and their children with regard
to their extended family and friendship networks (e.g., grandparent relationships), or the potential impact(s) that these contacts
might have on children's development, Patterson and Mason (in press) designed a study to evaluate the degree to which these
individuals might be important members of the child's social network.
Data was collected from a group of families (n = 37) in which children had been born to or adopted early in life by women who
identified as lesbian. Families were selected from the greater San Francisco area, and had to meet each of the following criteria:
(a) at least one child between the ages of 4 and 9 had to be present in the home, and (b) the child had to be born to or adopted by
a lesbian mother or mothers. In total, 66 mothers, who were predominantly white (92%) , in their late 30s (mean age 39.6
years), well educated (74% had received bachelors degrees of higher), and relatively affluent (92% reported annual incomes
over $30,000, and 54% reported annual incomes over $60,000), took part in the study.
Assessment strategies consisted of a family interview, as well as the administration of the Achenbach and Edelbrock Child
Behavior Checklist, and Elder's Children's Self-View Questionnaire. Results indicated that, on average, children were described
as having monthly or more frequent contact with approximately six adults outside the household (four women and two men).
Additionally, children had more contact with relatives of their biological mother than with relatives of their nonbiological
mother. Finally, children who were described by their mothers as being in regular contact with more grandparents also were
described as having fewer behavioral problems.
The researchers conclude that these results are not consistent with stereotypes of lesbian mothers and their child as being
isolated from kinship networks, or as living in single-sex social worlds. Additionally, children of lesbian mothers do tend to have
regular contact with both male and heterosexual adults. While noting the exploratory nature of the study, Patterson and Mason
(in press) suggest that these results point to the durability and value of extended family networks in lesbian families.
Chan, Raboy, & Patterson (in press). The researchers noted that children's development has generally been examined within the
context of families from via traditional conception methods. With this in mind, Chan, Raboy, and Patterson (in press) conducted
a study to assess potential differences between lesbian and heterosexual mothers, taking into consideration the advances in
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
22--------------------------------------- reproductive technologies. By doing so, the researchers felt they could examine questions
about psychosocial development that related both to family structure and family process.
Families (n = 80; 55 lesbian and 25 heterosexual) for this study were selected from the Sperm Bank of California. Mothers
averaged 42 years of age (children averaged 7 years of age), were mostly well educated, were most were employed at least
part-time. Additionally, the families were, on average, quite affluent, with annual incomes well above national averages. The
test instruments administered included the Child Behavior Checklist, the Teacher Report Form, the Parenting Stress Index -
Short From, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Locke-Wallace
Marital Adjustment Test, and the Braiker and Kelley Relationship Questionnaire.
Results indicated that no significant difference existed between lesbian and heterosexual mothers regarding relationship
adjustment, or reports of well-being as a function of sexual orientation. Children of both groups were reported as being well
adjusted - in fact, they tended to be rated as significantly higher on social competence and significantly lower on behavior
problems than children in the clinical population. Structural factors such as household composition and parental sexual
orientation were not associated with significant outcomes for either children or their parents.
It was found, though, that biological mother's reporting of parenting stress was significantly related to her own reporting of
children's behavior problems. This was also found to be true for reports of non-biological parents, as well as those of teachers.
However, these reports were not a function of the parent's sexual orientation, relationship status, or educational attainment. The
researcher's concluded that children's development was not related to variables of family structure (i.e., sexual orientation of the
parent); rather, children's well-being is more a function of parenting and relationship processes within the family (i.e., family
interactions and processes). Discussion and Conclusion
Research Regarding Lesbian Mothers
Analysis of the studies in this area (n = 7) revealed that lesbian mothers did not differ from heterosexual mothers with regard to
parenting behaviors and sex role characteristics (Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Pagelow, 1980; Shavelson et al., 1980). Additionally,
no differences were noted on the incidences of negative childhood experiences with men or positive experiences with women
(Peters & Cantrell, 1991). No differences were noted found in the way lesbian mothers rated "ideal" sons and daughters, with
regard to their behavior (Kweskin & Cook, 1982), although there was a tendency toward the rating of ideal child behavior in a
manner consistent with the mother's self-ratings. Further, attitudes toward homosexuality, as well as perceptions of distance in
parental relationships, did not differ between lesbian and heterosexual mothers (Peters & Cantrell, 1991).
Results of one study (Shavelson et al., 1980) did indicate that lesbians tend to rate themselves higher on a masculinity scale,
although a single predictor for this phenomena could not be isolated. Additionally, lesbian mothers tend to be more
self-confident (Green et al., 1986), more equalitarian in the distribution of household responsibilities and family decision
making (Patterson, 1995a), and report higher levels of satisfaction in their relationships (Pagelow, 1980; Patterson, 1995a).
Yet, lesbian mothers are still awarded sole custody of children at a rate far less than that of heterosexual mothers (Pagelow,
1980).
Lesbian and heterosexual women did not differ with regard to discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, and problems
in the collection of child support (Pagelow, 1980). This seems to suggest the over-riding presence of androsexism in this society
-- regardless of sexual orientation, women are still discriminated against.
Particularly with regard to sex role behaviors and characteristics, as well as attitudes and perceptions toward parenting, very few
differences exist between lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Lesbian women do seem to be more independent and satisfied,
however. Perhaps this might be explained as a consequence of their assertive behavior in proclaiming their identities to society.
Whereas heterosexual women may still be passively oppressed within a "traditional" family structure, lesbian women have
distinguished themselves as a separate entity. In doing so, they may have subjected themselves to potential condemnation by
society. However, by separating themselves from a system which oppresses them, they may benefit from a consequent boost in
self-esteem in their (perceived) triumph over it.
Research Regarding Gay Fathers
Results of analysis of studies in this area of the literature (n = 8) seem to indicate that gay fathers do not differ significantly
from heterosexual fathers on the dimensions of involvement or intimacy with their children (Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b,
1992); or on the dimensions of satisfaction, motivation, or goals and incentives (Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989b). Additionally, both
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
23--------------------------------------- groups tend to hold developmental attitudes toward the fathering role (Bigner & Jacobsen,
1992). Further, it does not appear that gay fathers subject their children to abuse or excessive harassment (Miller, 1979) and do
not convey a disproportionate tendency toward homosexuality to their children (Bailey et al., 1995; Miller, 1979; Skeen &
Robinson, 1984) as compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Early family backgrounds of gay fathers are generally
positive, and do not differ significantly from those of heterosexual fathers (Skeen & Robinson, 1984). Finally, gay step-families
do not differ significantly from heterosexual step-families (Crosbie-Burnett & Helmbrect, 1993), with both focused primarily on
reintegration of the fractured family structure.
There does seems to be a tendency for gay fathers to be more androgynous in their perceptions and value expressive traits more
highly (Mallen, 1983). Heterosexual fathers tend to hold more traditional attitudes toward family life (Bigner & Jacobsen,
1989b) and are more likely to perceive the sexes in stereotypical ways (Mallen, 1983). However, the two groups do not seem to
differ with regard to their overall happiness with the parenting role.
Overall, the similarities between gay and heterosexual fathers seem to vastly outweigh the differences. There seems to be no
evidence suggesting that gay fathers are any less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents and
both experience parenting for similar reasons. Sexual orientation seems to have no appreciable effect on how gay fathers react
to, or conceptualize, the fathering role.
Research Regarding Children of Homosexual Parents
Sixteen of the studies analyzed addressed issues concerning the possible effects of gay and lesbian parents on their children.
Results indicate that children of gay/lesbian parents do not differ significantly from those raised in heterosexual families in the
areas of intellectual development (Flaks et al., 1995; Green et al., 1986; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981), gender identity (Golombok et
al., 1983), sexual orientation (Bailey et al., 1995; Golombok et al., 1983; Miller, 1979), peer group relations (Green et al.,
1986), or self-esteem (Huggins, 1989).
Additionally, sexual orientation of the parent failed to have significant influences on either gender identity (Green, 1978) or
independence (Steckel, 1985) of the child. Irrespective of the parent's sexual orientation, children prefer sex-typed toys
consistent with their biological gender (Hoeffer, 1981) and do not suffer disproportionate amounts of turmoil (Flaks et al.,
1995; Weeks, 1975) or depression (Tasker & Golombok, 1995; Pennington, 1987).
Children raised in a lesbian home do tend to reside in a considerably less affluent setting than those raised by heterosexual
mothers (Miller et al., 1982) and lesbian mothers tend to strive harder to provide opposite-sex role models for their children
(Harris & Turner, 1986). Perhaps this represents a type of "double discrimination" whereby lesbians suffer discrimination both
from being female and lesbian. It is plausible that they may attempt to minimize this discrimination for their children by
providing "socially acceptable" models for their children.
Lesbian mothers tend to be more child oriented in their response to children (Miller et al., 1982) and their tendency toward
equal distribution of household responsibilities represents positive influences on the development of their children (Patterson,
1995c). Additionally, there is extensive evidence that children of homosexuals are no more likely to become homosexual
themselves as a consequence of the parent's sexual orientation (Bailey et al., 1995; Flaks et al., 1995; Miller, 1979; Tasker &
Golombok, 1995). Gay/lesbian parents show remarkably little anxiety concerning their children's eventual sexual orientation
(Miller, 1979; Miller et al., 1982).
Males raised by gay fathers expressed no difficulty with their father in his parental role, but their concern regarding his sexual
orientation was consistent with their perceptions regarding society's attitude (Bozett, 1988). As such, it is not their father's
sexual orientation, per se, which causes their discomfort; rather, it is their reaction to society's attitude toward homosexuality.
The lives of children of gay/lesbian parents are not problem free. They are subject to the same tensions and pressures of all
children, and society's reaction to the sexual orientation of their parents may even tend to magnify this somewhat. These results
have not led to any significant changes in societal opinion, and sexual orientation of the parent continues to be a major issue in
public policy formation (Patterson, 1992). However, results of these studies indicate that, on the whole, their lives do not differ
appreciably from those raised by heterosexual parents.
General Discussion ------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE 24---------------------------------------
The majority of these studies are plagued by problems in sampling. Only one study (Skeen & Robinson, 1984) used anything
even approaching a random sample, and only one study (Tasker & Golombok, 1995) was longitudinal in nature. Additionally,
nearly one-half of the studies analyzed used samples either totally (n = 8) or disproportionately (n = 4) Caucasian. Of the
remainder, 13 did not give ethnic demographics (although four of these did state that the participants were matched on the
variable of ethnicity), thereby making it difficult to judge their diversity. These problems tend to severely restrict the external
validity of any pertinent results. While mindful of the inherent difficulties in obtaining truly random samples, particularly due to
the current social stigma attached to homosexuality, the importance of generalizable conclusions would seem to warrant more
diverse sampling techniques.
Nevertheless, there seems to be support for the notion that homosexual parents are at least as capable of raising healthy, well
adapted children as heterosexual parents. Homosexual parents who become parents outside the context of a heterosexual
relationship may, in fact, be better parents, due to the conscious nature of their choosing to be parents. Homosexual parents tend
to display more nurturing behaviors toward their children. They also tend to be more knowledgeable about the parenting skills
necessary and more involved in the raising of their children. Lesbian relationships tend to be more stable than heterosexual
relationships and gay (male) relationships are as stable as heterosexual relationships. However, these conclusions are based on
implications, rather than direct evidence (i.e., intuitively, it makes sense to conclude that more nuturance in parents leads to
"better" outcomes for children; but there is no direct evidence for this).
Although it is difficult to accurately assess the factors that contribute to the best interests of the child, results from these studies
indicate that sexual orientation of the parent is a poor predictor of/is not a good indicator of sexual orientation of the child.
Incidence of homosexuality in children of homosexual parents does not differ significantly from that of the general population.
However, the additional social pressures of being the product of a "deviant" family must also be considered.
The legal/court system is still very biased in favor of heterosexuality. These results have not led to any significant changes in
societal opinion, and sexual orientation of the parent continues to be a major issue in public policy formation (Patterson, 1992).
A gay parent seeking either custody, continuation of parental rights, or visitation privileges is generally at a legal disadvantage
because of the subjective criteria used by many judges to serve the "best interests" of the child. Currently, the best way that a
gay/lesbian parent can increase his/her chance of obtaining custody and/or visitation is by portraying his/herself as being as
close to the All-American norm as possible .. and heterosexual, if not in actuality, then surely in appearance before the court and
behavior toward his/her children.
Yet, results of this study show that the bias displayed by the court system is without empirical support. Significant differences
with regard to parenting knowledge and attitudes, simply so not exist between gay/lesbian parents and their heterosexual
counterparts. Additionally, these results also failed to find any significant differences between children raised by homosexual
versus heterosexual parents.
Implications for Future Research
The published literature does not say much about what homosexual parents are; rather, it attempts to describe what they are not
in relation to heterosexual parents: they are not significantly different from them. And, it should be acknowledged that research
on lesbian and gay families with children is still relatively new (Patterson and Redding, 1996). Heterosexual parents are
currently the norm against which homosexual parents are compared. Although gay and lesbian parents are becoming more open
in society, their presence still has not been truly acknowledged, much less accepted, by our heterosexist culture. If lesbian and
gay parents are ever to be afforded fair and equal treatment by our social institutions, research needs to be done which will
affirm these alternative families as legitimate in their own right.
Another important consideration for future research is an acceptance of standard operational definitions. What is a "healthy,
well-adjusted person?" The definition of homosexuality as "deviant" implies that persons of this sexual orientation are somehow
"lacking" as compared to heterosexuals. Is this a valid conclusion? Homosexuals have been having and raising children for a
long time, without any apparent detrimental effects to society. Perhaps it is time that our society realize and accept as "normal"
lifestyles which are functional, and not simply "white, middle-class, and heterosexual."
------------National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 ------------ ---------------------------------END PAGE
25--------------------------------------- There does seem to be abundant and convincing evidence that sexual orientation is not a valid
consideration with regard to parenting abilities. Yet, bias and discrimination continues to flourish in society. However, in
agreement with Patterson and Redding (1996), "the findings (thus far) have been regarded as sufficiently clear to warrant policy
statements by major professional organizations" (p. 44). Perhaps the problem is not a lack of research, but one of dissemination.
Results of studies such as these need to be circulated such that those in positions of decision-making can make informed
decisions with access to all available information.
References
Bailey, J. M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental
Psychology, 31, 124-129.
Bigner, J. J. & Bozett, F. W. (1989). Parenting by gay fathers. Marriage and Family Review, 14(3-4), 155-176.
Bigner, J. J. & Jacobsen, R. B. (1992). Adult responses to child behavior and attitudes toward fathering: Gay and nongay
fathers. Journal of Homosexuality, 23(3), 99-112.
Bigner, J. J. & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989a). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. Journal of
Homosexuality, 18(1-2), 73-186.
Bigner, J. J. & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). The value of children to gay and heterosexual fathers. Journal of Homosexuality,
18(1-2), 163-172.
Bozett, F. W. (1989). Gay fathers: A review of the literature. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.) Homosexuality and the family (pp.
137-162). New York: Hawthorn.
Bozett, F. W. (1988). Social control of identity by children of gay fathers. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 550-565.
Bozett, F. W. (1984, Oct). Parenting concerns of gay fathers. Topics in Clinical Nursing, 60-71.
Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (in press). Psy