Abstract
Based on semi-structured, in-depth interviews, this article examines the experiences of twenty adults with gay and lesbian parents. Faced with ruptures in significant childhood attachments and strains in parent–child bonds, respondents developed coping strategies to deal with the disruptions to their bonds with others and the demands of forced autonomy that are the result of the creation of new identities. How and when they were told of their parents’ sexual orientation proved to be the fulcrum for how they were able to manage their identities as the children of gay and lesbian parents. The sexual orientation of their parents did not prove to be an issue for these respondents; instead the reactions of others proved to be a critical component for how they were able to create meanings in their lives—their identities were reinforced by positive interactions, and challenged by negative interactions. In the end, the influence of parental sexual orientation was less important, in relation to how respondents were able to construct meanings, and develop and maintain identities, than the qualities of familial relationships and interactions.
Sociologists have long had interests in the study of identity formation in childhood (e.g., Cooley 1922; Corsaro 1992, 2005; Mead 1934). Scholars have used the family structure to tease out how identities are constructed and maintained within the family context, and have focused their attention on how young people explore their identities both within and outside the family unit. Classic theories by Blos (1967) and Kroger (1985) define the identity construction process in terms of separation, developing the idea that adolescents must distinguish themselves from their parents to construct their individual identities. Other theories place an emphasis on the stable connections established between adolescents and parents, suggesting that these connections provide the most favorable context for identity construction and maintenance (e.g., Grotevant and Cooper 1986; Kruse and Walper 2008; Scabini and Manzi 2011). To understand the identity construction process within the family context fully, each of these approaches (i.e., the individuation and differentiation processes) provides valuable insights into how identities are constructed. In this article, I focus on the retrospective accounts of adults who have gay and lesbian parents. The respondents’ experiences demonstrate how identities are constructed, manipulated, reconstructed, and maintained through a negotiated process that relies upon the meanings created through social interaction.
The influence of parental sexual orientation on childhood development has received increasing scholarly attention (Allen and Burrell 1997; Bos et al. 2012; Chan, Raboy, and Patterson 1998; Patterson 2000, 2006; Crowl, Ahn, and Baker 2008; Wainright and Patterson 2006, 2008). Although childhood developmental and emotional outcomes hold special interest in their own right, for the purpose of this research, they only serve to provide the lens through which to examine identity construction and maintenance. How individuals define their situations and react to their experiences forms the cornerstone of the symbolic interactionist perspective, and as such, provides the theoretical foundation of this research. Children reared in alternative homes are not merely products of the structural elements of their environments, but are also active participants in their environments. Children with gay and lesbian parents navigate and/or negotiate their childhoods in ways that enable them to establish meanings that add value and legitimacy to their lives. This is important when considering how children growing up in alternative households construct and maintain their identities. Children with gay and lesbian parents encounter circumstances that differ from those experienced by children raised in heteronormative households. Children with gay and lesbian parents must incorporate their parents’ sexual orientation into their interpretative processes, which results in an additional layer of identity creation in the identity construction process that is not present in heteronormative homes. A level of privilege accompanies the importance of biological relatedness that must be acknowledged when developing an understanding of the effects of heterosexual dominance and heteronormative value systems (Ryan and Berkowitz 2009). The lack of social scripts for alternative families presents gays and lesbians with “empty spaces” that they must define outside the confines of dominant heteronormative value systems (Hicks 2006). Gays and lesbians must construct alternative methods for “doing family,” and this requires a negotiation of what it means to be a family (Perlesz et al. 2006; West and Zimmerman 1987).
Properly “doing family” is an accomplishment based upon a set of situated behaviors. Children with gay and lesbian parents “learn” what it means to be family, and act accordingly, with each member of the family unit negotiating meanings in the process. Families are not the products of strictly structural or deterministic factors but, instead, are composed of social actors involved in the process of interaction. Children with gay and lesbian parents define meanings in their lives through their interactions with their parents and their peers, and these meanings become part of their social environments, working to inform their identities, which are the most public aspects of the self (Blumer 1969; Gecas and Burke 1995; Goffman 1959). Children with gay and lesbian parents must negotiate emotional situations as they learn to accept their parents’ sexual orientation (Van Voorhis and McClain 1997). When children experience negative feedback from their social environments because of homophobia and heterosexism, they must learn to manage their identities in ways that mediate the stigmatizing impact (Gelderen et al. 2012; Hart, Mourot, and Aros 2012; Welsh 2011). 1 The complex ways that sociocultural institutions shape society and the individuals within them are critical to understanding how alternative families define their experiences (Ryan and Berkowitz 2009). Children with gay and lesbian parents develop identities within the parameters established by heteronormative values that often fail to recognize the validity of their personal realities.
Although a substantial body of research examines the experiences of children reared by gay or lesbian parents, this work lacks a qualitative insight into how adults who grow up in same-sex, gay, or lesbian households construct meanings of self, and develop and maintain their identities. The research to date has focused primarily on children and their levels of psychological adjustment and development (Allen and Burrell 1997; Bos et al. 2012; Crowl et al. 2008). For example, recent research focused on the psychological and emotional development of children with gay and lesbian parents suggests that positive childhood outcomes have stronger associations with family processes than elements of family structure (Chan et al. 1998; Crowl et al. 2008; Farr, Forssell, and Patterson 2010; Golombok et al. 2003; Patterson 2000; Wainright and Patterson 2006, 2008). The sexual orientation of parents did not have a significant, negative impact on childhood outcomes. In fact, parental sexual orientation had less influence on childhood outcomes than did qualities of familial relationships and interactions along with the value structures (e.g., heteronormative) established within the home and other related social support environments (e.g., church, peer groups, extended family). Regardless of whether children had one mother and one father, two mothers, two fathers, or care-givers (e.g., older siblings, grandparents, extended family members), they thrived in homes that provided stability and love (Farr et al. 2010; Golombok and Badger 2010).
Family process variables such as parenting stress, parenting strategies, and couple relationship satisfaction, along with the effects of divorce, were also significantly associated with assessments of childhood outcomes (e.g., Amato and Cheadle 2005; Bos, Balen, and Boom 2004; D’Onofrio et al. 2007; Golombok et al. 2003; Tasker and Patterson 2007). This is an important consideration when focusing on the experiences of children with gay and lesbian parents because of the bonds created within families that function outside the boundaries established by heteronormative value systems. Gay and lesbian parents consistently report significantly better relationships with their children than their heterosexual counterparts (Crowl et al. 2008; Tasker and Golombok 1995; Tasker 2005). A possible explanation focuses on the protective role of the relationships established between gay and lesbian parents and their children (Crowl et al. 2008). Given the negative societal and cultural messages children receive regarding their gay and lesbian parents, these parents create and maintain close relationships with their children that serve to buffer against the prejudice and stigmatization their children may face. Children with gay and lesbian parents also experience divorce, and the negative effects of the divorce process (Amato and Cheadle 2005; D’Onofrio et al. 2007). However, studies comparing the development among children of divorced, lesbian mothers with children of divorced, heterosexual mothers found few significant differences between the two groups (Patterson 2006; Stacey and Biblarz 2001).
Families establish social support environments that provide the foundations from which individual identities emerge. Relationships and interactions within family-based environments provide support for meaning development and identity construction, negotiation, and maintenance. With that established, these environments are not “straitjackets” that determine individual behavior, but instead our social roles, families, and neighborhoods assert pressure on how we define our experiences and construct and maintain our identities (Blumer 1969; Stryker and Burke 2000). Understanding how people construct their identities within the family context requires considering the interdependence that distinguishes the family unit from other social groups. Children rely on their parents to establish meanings in their lives. When a rupture occurs in the parent–child relationship, meanings are disturbed and the identity construction process is affected (Buhl 2008; Scabini and Manzi 2011). Children develop the ability to anticipate the responses of others and define self-concepts that provide structures from which their identities are constructed and maintained (Mead 1934; Gecas and Burke 1995).
Children with gay and lesbian parents learn to negotiate emotional situations as they learn to accept their parent’s sexual orientation (Van Voorhis and McClain 1997). When children experience negative feedback from their social environments because of homophobia and heterosexism, they learn to manage their identities in ways that mediate the impact of such feedback (Gelderen et al. 2012; Hart et al. 2012; Welsh 2011). While previous studies by Allen and Burrell (1997) and Golombok and Tasker (1996) looked at the effects of parental sexual orientation with no differences found, Gershon, Tschann, and Jemerin (1999) found a significant level of variation on the “perceived stigma” scale for children with gay and lesbian parents. The social basis of self and identity captured in the process of interaction is problematic for stigmatized individuals who receive negative information more regularly than non-stigmatized individuals. Stigma documents a range of stigma management strategies that include “passing” as part of the dominant group, selectively associating with supportive individuals, and participating in social movement activities to change the perception of the stigmatized social group (Anderson, Snow, and Cress 1994; Gershon et al. 1999; Goffman 1963; Kaufman and Johnson 2004; Snow and Anderson 1987). How children, who must hide their identities as children with gay and lesbian parents, engage in stigma management strategies is of particular concern because these strategies are not commonly available for children. Instead, these strategies develop as individuals move into adulthood and beyond.
Children with gay and lesbian parents are constrained by their social environments (e.g., the family), but are also responsible for how these social environments are reproduced through their interactions, and the roles that they occupy (see McLeod and Lively 2006; West and Zimmerman 1987). This article focuses on the accounts of a group of adults, from a variety of demographic backgrounds, who have gay and lesbian parents. Although their accounts of childhood experiences are similar in some ways related to how they experienced having gay and lesbian parents, they differ in their experiences of how and when they learned of their parents’ sexual orientation. These differences provide a window into how people are motivated to engage in the identity construction and maintenance process. Their families provided the foundation from which they defined meaning in their lives (e.g., Buhl 2008; Scabini and Manzi 2011; Zentner and Renaud 2007). When their families were scrutinized and defined in non-normative ways, the meaning creation process was challenged, and their lived experiences worked to mediate the negative effects of being reared in non-normative environments and provided benefits that accrued along the way. Another area of interest within the scope of this research is the examination of how children who have gay and lesbian parents experience and deal with the effects of discrimination, homophobia, and stigmatization (Goffman 1959, 1963).
Methods
In this article, I draw on two waves of in-depth interviews with adults who have gay and/or lesbian parents. I recruited the first wave of respondents from a variety of regional gay and lesbian support groups, college campuses, and ads placed on internet-based message boards. I conducted twelve face-to-face interviews in the first wave. Each interview lasted between ninety minutes and two hours. I recruited the second wave of respondents via snowball sampling. Respondents participated from across the United States. I provided each respondent with a variety of options for how to participate in the interview process. Five respondents participated through personal journals written in response to questions that I provided (questionnaire). Three respondents participated by phone or Skype. I used the same questions, regardless of the form of participation. I told potential respondents the study focused on the everyday-life experiences of children who had gay and/or lesbian parents (Adler, Adler, and Fontana 1987). I use pseudonyms throughout the discussion to protect the identities of the respondents, and the research received approval from the University of Wyoming’s Institutional Review Board.
The respondents varied by race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. The average age of the respondents was twenty-seven, and their ages ranged from eighteen to forty-three. There were three males and seventeen females. Fourteen of the respondents had lesbian mothers and six had gay fathers (two of the respondents had both lesbian mothers and gay fathers). Roughly one-half of the respondents self-identified as non-white. All of the respondents had completed some level of college, and three had advanced degrees. Although I cannot provide a descriptive context of the living conditions and neighborhoods of the respondents, the interviews revealed that the majority, if not all, of the respondents lived in middle- to high-income households where resources were not scarce and where there was a lack of severe economic hardship (see Table 1).
Respondent Demographics (N = 20).
The questions were loosely formatted and were used primarily as a tool to guide the respondents throughout the course of their personal accounts. This permitted the respondents to tell their stories in free-flowing manners that encouraged relaxed responses. Using inductive practices well acknowledged in qualitative sociological research, the analysis of the respondents’ personal accounts revealed how they constructed and maintained their identities as children with gay and lesbian parents. During the course of the interviews, I asked respondents to recall when and how they discovered their parents’ sexual orientation, and to describe their experiences with their parents, peers, school administrators, and coworkers. I also asked them what they found most difficult, as children with gay and lesbian parents, and how they viewed and understood their relationships with their parents.
I conducted this research using the principles of grounded theory (see Charmaz 2006; Glaser and Strauss 1967). Grounded theory differs from theory logically derived from a priori assumptions in that it supports loosely structured research designs that allow theoretical ideas to emerge from the field throughout the course of the study. I started this research with generative questions that served to guide the research, but not intended to be either static or confining. Although the topic of the research focuses on the childhood experiences of people with gay and/or lesbian parents, my real interest lay in the identity construction process. To demonstrate the individual (subjective) and social aspects of the respondents’ experiences, I let them give their accounts, and relied on sociological theory for extracting the meanings from their accounts (Berger and Quinney 2005; Gubrium and Holstein 1999; Holstein and Gubrium 2000; Irvine 2012). The grounded theory approach produces little interest in generalizability; the task is to give a voice to the research subjects, and to provide a description and understanding of the total particularities of the situation under examination (Lofland et al. 2006). Similar to other researchers who focused on a small number of interviews, I maintain that the respondents’ accounts bring new theoretical insights to the research on identity construction (Behar 1993; Irvine 2012; Laslett 1990, 1991). My primary goal was to develop a general understanding of how people with gay and lesbian parents construct their identities, and to gain insight into their lived experiences from within their frame of reference.
Personal Accounts of Family History
Sociologists have long recognized that family membership strongly influences individual development. One can escape from a role within the family but not from family membership altogether. For example, children have no choice in being born or adopted into a family and to their parents. Regardless of what brings the members together, the family constitutes an organization of primary relationships that connects and binds it members together. To understand identity construction within the family context, the identity construction process and the differentiation process have to be considered together (e.g., Buhl 2008). Children construct identities that define them as members of a family unit as well as identities that differentiate them from other family members. Individual family members’ identities manifest both the interdependence that characterizes the family and the need for members of the family to distinguish themselves from one another. Although the family structure influences each member, each one also establishes niches from within which they construct their individual identities. Thus, whole family units, not just individuals, participate in the process of identity construction. When a rupture occurs in the family unit, members become estranged from one another, and disruption consequently occurs in the identity creation process.
The identity construction process also draws from the family’s shared ideology. Thus, a family’s shared beliefs regarding the normalcy or value of having a mom and a dad in relation to having two moms or two dads helps shape the meanings available for children who learn of a parent’s gay or lesbian status during the process of a divorce. Whereas some of the respondents in this study were born into alternative families and discovered their parents’ sexual orientation via their birth or adoption narratives, others experienced the divorce of their parents before learning that one (or both) of their parents identified as gay or lesbian. The contrast between the two groups of respondents provided a window into how they constructed, negotiated, and maintained their identities. The most important element of this research proved to be how and when the respondents learned of, or discovered, their parents’ sexual orientation. How they responded to, defined, and attached meanings to their experiences hinged on this moment of realization. In what follows, I first offer illustrative examples of how those born into alternative families defined their families as normal, and I then contrast these with accounts from those who learned about their parents’ sexual orientation through the process of divorce.
Constructing the Family as “Normal”
The accounts of the respondents who grew up in alternative homes from birth shared elements that relied on the conceptualization of a “normal” family. Although one could argue that a truly normal family is only an ideal type, these respondents nonetheless relied upon the concept unanimously. They were not merely products of their environments, but also active participants in defining those environments (see Blumer 1969). For example, Deanna, age twenty-three, described how she considered it normal to have two mothers: Having two moms was never a problem. Occasionally, I would have people who would try to make fun of me, but I was always so strong in the belief that they were wrong. I mean I grew up with my parents, they love me and they love each other, and it is just normal. Our family is normal. It never made any sense to me that it could be wrong. If it happened on occasion, I just thought that those people were ridiculous, and they usually were not the type of people I wanted to spend time with anyway.
Deanna’s account demonstrates the process of identity construction and the negotiation of meaning can occur among the children of gay and lesbian parents. Their social environments were not the products of strictly structural or other socially deterministic factors but, instead, composed of many social actors involved in the process of interaction. The relationships Deanna and other respondents developed with their parents provided the catalyst for how well their identities were constructed. Children with alternative families define meanings in their lives through their interactions with their parents and their peers, and these meanings inform and support their identities (Gecas and Burke 1995).
Deanna’s quote demonstrates that among the different types of roles that a person assumes within his/her life, arguably the most important is the filial (Scabini and Manzi 2011). Everyone is a son or a daughter, even if he or she never becomes a partner or a parent. Our identities as sons and daughters shape our lives, and provide us with meanings that we rely on in the iterations of the identity construction process. For example, Zentner and Renaud (2007) outlined how the process of identity construction within the family involves three crucial elements: what parents want to transmit to their children, the extent to which the children receive the message that the parents intended to transmit, and the extent to which children consider the patterns of meaning from this process. Deanna received the message her mothers intended her to hear: that her family was normal. When Deanna confronted conflicting information, the attachment to her mothers, and the narratives they provided, took precedence and provided greater than the information provided by those who challenged the validity of her identity.
Growing up in an alternative home from birth produced birth or adoption narratives that provided the foundation for the creation of identities, which then form more-or-less stable hierarchies. My research revealed that these hierarchies proved difficult to challenge as the respondents moved through childhood and adolescence. Respondents with birth or adoption narratives organized the salience of their identities based on having gay and lesbian parents; the fact that they had gay and lesbian parents was a part of their lives from an early age, and thus accepted and integrated into other aspects of the self. Having two moms or two dads was normal, it was a valued form of family structure, and their identity hierarchies reflected this fact. For example, just as Deanna defined having two mothers as being normal, Amanda, age twenty-two, also saw nothing unusual in her family: I didn’t realize my family was different until I started school. I had never really thought about it until someone pointed it out to me. I think it was in kindergarten, but I don’t really remember because it wasn’t a big deal. I had never known anything different. My life seems pretty normal. People seem to want there to be more drama than there is—I had a remarkably normal childhood. It just so happens that I had two moms.
According to Amanda, belonging to an alternative family was never an issue. Until other children pointed out the fact that she had two moms, she never realized it made her different. Her mothers provided her with an adoption narrative when she was young, and this satisfied her curiosity regarding where she came from and how her family formed.
Respondents born into alternative families or adopted by parents at an early age experienced little stress upon realizing that their families were different.
2
The birth and adoption narratives provided by their parents gave them a foundation for the creation of identities defined as normal. Being a member of a “normal family” was a common theme presented by those who had been born into an alternative home or who had joined an alternative family at a very early age through adoption. Unlike those who were the products of divorce, they had never “known anything different.” For instance, Jeffrey, a twenty-year-old college student, explains, My moms were together when they had me, so I never knew anything different. I also know my biological dad. He has always been part of our family. I don’t really remember them sitting me down and telling me anything. It just was normal to have two moms and a dad. When kids did try and make-fun of me, it just didn’t make any sense; I mean my family was normal.
For Jeffrey, the fact that his mothers were lesbians was never an issue because he never “knew anything different.” He had a birth narrative from which he established an identity as a child with gay/lesbian parents. Jeffrey never felt a sense of betrayal by his parents, and their sexual orientation was never an issue for him. While Jeffrey’s peers did challenge the “normalcy” of having lesbian moms and a gay dad, his identity remained stable. He went on to say, I think it is silly when people expect there to be drama in my life; people want there to be this level of stress or angst, and it just isn’t there. I want people to realize that there are many different forms of family, and no one form is better than the other as long as there is love and support. We are a normal family. I am not sure it was ever labeled as “different” in our home—I mean we go to school and eat dinner together, we argue, we laugh, we are just a normal family. I know people want to hear about the stress and drama, but that just wasn’t my reality.
Deanna, Amanda, Jeffrey, and the other respondents who had the benefit of birth and adoption narratives did not struggle to establish their identities as children with alternative families. Although the circumstances of one’s family affect everyone’s identity, those who grow up in nonheteronormative environments experience circumstances that make them different from their peers. The structure of their families reinforced the meanings in their lives and provided a defense against the effects of heterosexism. Their experiences were defined as normal. By the time these respondents were confronted with the issue that their families were different, they had firmly established identities as children with gay and lesbian parents. Moreover, this research suggests that their identities were highly resilient. They had incorporated meanings associated with their parents’ sexual orientation into their interpretative processes, and the identities that they created were stable. Melissa, age twenty-four, demonstrated this resiliency when she said, I am very clear and open with the fact that I have two moms; that was the way I was raised, my moms are proud of who they are, and they are proud of me. We are a normal family. No one has ever been like, “you have two moms.” It has never been a problem. I never had friends refuse to come over for sleepovers or stuff like that. There is a group of people I have been friends with since elementary school—our parents are friends too. I have never had problems with anyone. Of course, I have never let it become a problem, so maybe that has affected my experiences—I mean there is nothing that anyone could tell me that would affect the way I feel about having two moms.
Melissa’s family supported her identity as a child with lesbian parents. Her mothers reinforced both the validity of their family unit and Melissa’s role within it. Thus, Melissa interpreted her experiences based on the meanings that she created with the help and support of her mothers.
The Impact of Divorce and the Sudden Outing of a Parent
Although I commonly heard themes of normalcy, resiliency, and stability from respondents with birth and adoption narratives, this was not the case for respondents who learned of their parents’ sexual orientation through divorce. The literature recognizes that divorce can produce an array of negative outcomes for children (e.g., Amato and Cheadle 2005; D’Onofrio et al. 2007). Indeed, for the respondents in this study, the harmful effects of divorce clearly appear in their accounts. However, their parents’ separation did not constitute a primary stressor in the construction of their identities. Instead, factors such as how parents, school administrators, and extended families managed information during the process of divorce proved more relevant. For these respondents, the effects of heterosexism were more damaging than the separation of their parents. For this group of respondents, when the meanings initially established within their families were disrupted, the result was anomie: they could no longer anticipate the responses of others, and their self-concepts were no longer valid. Because identities are constructed and reinforced through processes influenced by social structures, when primary social structures such as the family divide into opposing sides, children are left without interpretive schemas and meanings that could help them understand new, alternative family structures (Stryker 1980). This happened to Halie, now age twenty-two. Her account illustrates how lost children feel when the meanings in their lives are disrupted: Divorce is hard and not just because your parents no longer live in the same house, but because of their reactions throughout the process of divorce and their anger toward one another that placed us (the children) in the position of managing the situation. Was I expected to know what to do? Wasn’t I just a kid? I felt lost and alone. My mother was a lesbian, the rest of my family were fundamentalists, and we (the children) were stuck somewhere in the middle. It felt like my family didn’t exist any more.
Given the feelings of isolation and identity confusion that appear in Halie’s account, it is not surprising that the respondents who experienced a divorce struggled with their newly discovered identities as children of gay and/or lesbian parents (see Flowers and Buston 2001). They did not have the type of birth or adoption narratives and shared meanings that provided support for the other respondents when they were faced with challenges, nor did they have strong, intact family units that could absorb this type of trauma.
Respondents who experienced their parents’ divorce also emphasized how they struggled with the idea that parents are assumed to be heterosexual, by default. They initially rejected, or managed, their new identities as children of gay and lesbian parents as a means to pass as the child of straight parents. This stemmed not from their desire to hide their new roles, but from their parents’ discomfort with their identities as gay or lesbian. Thus, their parents required them to keep their sexual orientation a secret. The children experienced the resulting conflict and dissonance in terms of identity as both difficult and painful. For example, Sue, age twenty-four, explains: After the divorce, my father moved away and I lived with my mom. My mom’s partner stayed in the background. They felt moving in together would have been a problem with the divorce and the custody situation. For me the situation didn’t become normalized for a very long time. . . . My mom’s partner lived a couple of hours away, so she split her time. This fueled my anger because I was not included in her secret life. They were not out, which demonstrated to me that her being a lesbian was something that should traumatize me. That is the way that it went through high school. My mom had a secret life, and I had to keep her secret.
Sue’s account demonstrates the power of homophobia (perceived or real) and the resulting need for identity management. The task of such identity management is far from easy. Most of those I interviewed relied on passing, the most common of several stigma-evasion strategies (Goffman 1963). Those who attempted to “pass” led “double lives” by segregating their social worlds. As Sue pointed out, “passing” required significant psychological work: I just didn’t talk about it. I took on my mom’s secret. My family didn’t know, the neighbors didn’t know, my classmates, etc.—some of my friends still don’t know. It was hard for me to be comfortable with something when my mom wasn’t comfortable. That is part of the anger that I had to deal with. I don’t think she truly understands to this day the gravity of how it affected me. In a way I was in the closet. When friends dropped me off late at night, and my mom was at her partners’, I had to tell them she was working. I was afraid my friends would stop hanging out with me, or that their parents would forbid them to hang out with me. I was afraid of being shunned. I just wanted to get through school, and I thought if I told someone, I would be different, and different was bad.
Another respondent offered a similar account. Although Nancy’s dad was open about his sexual orientation, she still felt pressure to “pass” because of the conservative environment of her neighborhood. Nancy, age thirty, echoed Sue’s sentiments and illustrated the difficulty of moving past the pain and confusion felt during this period: I hit a point where I thought that maybe I shouldn’t tell everyone. In high school, I started feeling like no one would ever be my friend if I told them that my dad was gay. I didn’t have a problem with my dad, but I had a fear that others would. Every time I was faced with telling someone, like when I came into a new group of people, I was always prepared for them not to be my friends, and they were always totally shocked that I would feel that way. While no one ever had a problem with my dad being gay, I was still scared to share—I still don’t like to share this information with people I don’t know well because we live in a conservative area of the country. I am still scared.
The theme of normalcy was absent from these accounts, and the speakers struggled to develop identities that conflicted with those they formed around having heteronormative families. In addition, the moment of realization occurred at an older age, resulting in feelings of loss and betrayal. They had established identities based on heteronormative values, and the discovery that their parents were gay and/or lesbian disrupted and challenged their identities. They had to redefine their identities to incorporate their parents’ sexual orientation. For these respondents, this became a challenge that threatened their heteronormative family structures and resulted in redefined relationships. When I asked Sue what she would change about her situation, her answer took me by surprise: I would like for all of us to be a family. I would have it just be what it is; I wish my mom’s partner would come to more family events, and let whoever doesn’t like the fact that they are lesbians, just deal with it. I wish she could just be our stepmom. I think my mom and her partner are both more comfortable not dealing with it. I think it stresses them when my sister and I put pressure on them to be more open. They are comfortable with the situation the way it is, but I would like for us to be a real family.
Sue’s account echoes those of other respondents who experienced divorces of parents who had hidden their sexual orientation and established homes with strong, heteronormative value systems. In these homes, children acquired values that assumed only one type of “normal” family, which consisted of a mom and dad. Their value systems had defined other types of families as inferior and even harmful. When parents hid their sexual orientation from their children during and after the divorce, they hid a part of themselves and sent a message to their children that there was something to feel ashamed of, something that needed concealing from the outside world. According to the respondents, the shame attached to having to hide their parents’ sexual orientation incurred much more damage than did the effects of a divorce or the actual repercussions of having gay and/or lesbian parents.
How respondents learned of their parents’ sexual orientation had a dramatic impact on their identities that often lingered into their adulthood. More than one of the respondents admitted to undergoing therapy, not because they have gay or lesbian parents or because of a divorce, but because of the manner in which they received the information. Their accounts share the common theme that they learned during the course of a divorce, or even years later, in an ugly and hateful way from a third party, often another family member. This moment of disclosure and associated heteronormative value system worked to define how the respondents established their identities as children of gay or lesbian parents. Their identities were challenged in an array of negative ways associated with their individual situations, and these collective challenges worked to damage their self-concepts. One respondent did not have his dad’s sexual orientation confirmed until he was in his early twenties. Adam, age forty, said, I knew something was different about my dad before my parents divorced, but I didn’t talk to him about it until I was in my early twenties. I guess that I always knew. I just didn’t have language for it. We didn’t talk about it. One afternoon I was at one of his friend’s funeral. At the funeral, the guy’s mother stood up and pointed at my dad. She screamed that my dad had killed her son. My dad is HIV positive, and his partner died of AIDS-related complications. At that moment during the funeral, I felt cheated out of knowing my dad’s partner—as a person who was significantly important in his life. I feel betrayed by my father.
Adam had established an identity as a child of heterosexual parents, and this incident forced him to accept a new identity in a very public, emotionally charged environment. Although Adam suspected that his dad was gay, he never had the opportunity to explore what that should mean for him. He said that he did not care if his dad was gay or not, but he cared about the deception. He felt like he had never really known his father. Adam’s story is particularly relevant because it illustrates how much the qualities of familial relationships matter, and how little parental sexual orientation matters, from the perspective of the adult child.
The Development and Management of New Identities
One’s identity within the family unit refers to aspects of the self that relate to the specific role the individual plays within the family (Scabini and Manzi 2011). At the individual level, a socially defined identity as a child of a gay or lesbian parent implies the perception of one’s family as an in-group with which one identifies. The family is a shared in-group, and as such, represents one of the most salient in-group categories in our lives. Belonging to a family differs from other group memberships because family membership cannot be psychologically canceled or negated (Scabini and Manzi 2011). An individual’s identity always involves being part of one’s family, even if individual members choose to disassociate from the family unit. When a rupture in the family unit disrupts or challenges our roles in the family, the result is psychologically damaging.
The respondents who grew up with heteronormative values failed to recognize the validity of their personal realities when they realized the sexual orientation of their parents. They lacked access to a collective identity as children of gay and lesbian parents. These respondents constructed their identities as children of gay and lesbian parents through a negotiation process that often met resistance or negative input from members of their primary social groups (see Cerulo 1997). They were trapped between the prior meanings established in their families and the new meanings being established in their new families. In addition, they had no access to narratives that supported a collective identity with others who had gay and lesbian parents. This absence of a collective identity figures heavily in how these respondents negotiated meanings and defined their identities. They lack a reference group for positive reflected appraisals. This was the case for Brenda, age twenty-three. She said, My mom being a lesbian was just a lot to absorb, and my dad was no help. He was angry. We lived in a really conservative area, and there were no other families with lesbian moms or gay dads—I don’t think there were even any divorced parents. I didn’t understand what having a lesbian mom meant or how I was expected to react, other than I should hide it. I felt isolated from my friends. I didn’t know how to have a lesbian parent. . . . The lack of support and guidance was the problem.
Brenda had to develop a new identity without guidance, support, or preestablished meanings. When respondents had to internalize information about their parents’ sexual orientation instead of sharing it with others, they often experienced feelings of shame and confusion. They had learned that being gay or lesbian was deviant and wrong. In addition, they had no positive role models or instructions for how to act or feel as children of gay and lesbian parents. This poses a direct contrast to the experiences of those who had access to birth/adoption narratives.
When parents hid their sexual orientation or required they keep their sexual orientation a secret because of fear, heteronormative values, and/or because of a nasty divorce, the negative effects of a divorce became secondary. These respondents felt restricted or constrained from developing new identities. As Halie explained, Divorce is hard and not just because your parents no longer live in the same house, but because of their reactions throughout the process of divorce and their anger toward one another that place the children in the position of managing the situation. When my mom “outed” my dad, it was traumatic for everyone (me, my sister, my mom, and my dad). How was I supposed to react? What did it mean to have a gay dad? The fact that my dad was gay wasn’t an issue, but the way that they, as my parents, handled the information was the issue.
Abbie shared a similar account: My parents’ divorce was really ugly. My dad was really upset and hurt, so he used my mom being a lesbian to try to turn me against her and her partner. That was why the divorce was so bad—not the fact that my mom was living with her new partner, but that my dad was so upset and ugly about it. That made it difficult. The fact that my mom is a lesbian was never the problem. The problem was I didn’t know how to respond to my mom being a lesbian, or how I should feel as someone who has a lesbian mom.
Like other respondents in her situation, Abbie didn’t know how “to respond” or “to feel” as a child with lesbian and/or gay parents. She did not have a chance to explore what it meant to have a lesbian mom. When I asked Abbie what she would have changed about her situation, she said, I would change how my dad and extended family responded to the divorce. My parents needed to divorce, and I wouldn’t change that, but the way that my mom was treated was horrible—by both sides of the family. That is what I would change. I hate to think about how unhappy they would be if they were still together. I would also change how much they fought throughout the process and how they failed to help us (kids) adjust to having a lesbian mom. I mean I wish they could have helped us discover what our new roles were in our new divided family.
Respondents who experienced the effects of a nasty divorce not only had their identities challenged, they also felt lost and unable to understand their new roles as children of gay/lesbian parents. The heteronormative value systems that upheld their identities as children of heterosexual parents were not accepting of alternative lifestyles. Once faced with having a gay/lesbian parent, these respondents had to reconcile attitudes and beliefs that conflicted with their new realities. This left them to figure out their new roles without support.
While acknowledging the stress they experienced, most of the respondents believed that this period of their lives made them stronger and more tolerant of diversity. According to Abbie, I think the fact that I made it through all of this made me stronger. My experiences have made me who I am, and have affected the way that I view the world. I am really confident in my ability to make choices in my life and follow through. I am more accepting of diversity, and I am aware of how I treat others. This is a good thing.
Similarly, forty-three-year-old Ann explains, My mom and dad were married for 20+ years, and I was fourteen when my mom left my dad for another woman. Their divorce is the reason that I am an activist today. My dad supported my mom’s decision to leave, but my school counselor freaked out. When she found out about the divorce she said, “you cannot live with your mom.” Her negative response sent a clear message that I could not discuss this with other people. So, it wasn’t my parents’ response, but instead the response of the counselor at my school that scared me and made me think that my family wasn’t normal. In retrospect, this was the response that made me determined to make a difference by becoming involved in the LGBT community.
Although the accounts from Abbie, Ann, and others reflect hardship, anomie, and conflict, the speakers found a positive aspect in their experiences. Having to navigate and/or negotiate their parents’ divorces and construct new identities enabled them to establish meanings that added value and legitimacy to their lives.
Conclusion
Although a large body of research examines the experiences of children reared by gay or lesbian parents, this literature lacks a qualitative understanding of how adults who grew up in alternative households constructed, negotiated, and maintained their identities. Building on the premise that families provide the foundation from which children define meaning in their lives, this study reveals that, when families undergo scrutiny and stigmatization, the meaning creation process is challenged. The respondents’ lived experiences mediated the negative effects of growing up in non-normative environments and provided benefits that accrued along the way. The influence of parental sexual orientation proved less important in relation to childhood outcomes than did the qualities of familial relationships and interactions. Children of same-sex parents do not grow up in a vacuum; they are active participants in how their environments are defined. The fact that the respondents had gay and lesbian parents was not the main issue, but rather how they navigated and made meanings in their lives due to their experiences; there were specific forces that applied pressure to the identity creation and maintenance process due to their family-based realities. Having gay and lesbian parents may have provided a catalyst for conflict in some situations; however, sexual orientation was never the primary issue. Instead, familial relationships and interactions proved more important.
Respondents born into alternative families experienced less stress than those who discovered their parents’ sexual orientation via a divorce. Their birth narratives defined their families as normal, and the stigmatization associated with having gay and lesbian parents was mediated. They were never challenged with conflicting norms and values and rarely relied upon coping strategies to manage the impressions of others, such as passing, in their childhoods and as they have moved into adulthood. They never felt the need to hide their identities, because their lives were defined as being normal. Heteronormative value systems were never established in their homes or social support circles. Their identities were formed before they were challenged in their social environments and by the time these challenges occurred, they had firmly established beliefs that held up under scrutiny. They had positive definitions for the meanings in their lives, and for what it meant to be the children of gay and lesbian parents. This was not the case for those respondents who experienced the process of divorce, especially when the divorce was ugly and when one of the parents used the other parent’s sexual orientation as a weapon for leverage in the divorce process.
The respondents who discovered their parents’ sexual orientation via a divorce faced an array of stressors that the other respondents, those who were provided birth narratives, did not. When respondents developed identities within guidelines that were established by heteronormative values, these values often failed to recognize the validity and value of the respondents’ personal realities. These findings highlight an array of mixed messages supplied by parents, peers, and by the larger community about what it means to have gay and lesbian parents, and how these meanings are used by individuals who are challenged by the reality of having alternative families in the identity construction and maintenance processes. Messages served to reinforce heteronormative models of family that the respondents were forced to evaluate, reconcile, and then integrate into their developing sense of self. The respondents affirmed that while heteronormative cultural paradigms continued to reinforce the traditional family structure, their understanding of socially constructed criteria for what constitutes a family extended well beyond conventional concepts. The language they used more broadly reflected bonds of love, support, and tolerance. While it seems that the meanings these respondents attached to their experiences had the power and potential to neutralize the negative arguments centered on the topic of alternative families, their accounts also revealed that they faced challenges and struggles they had to navigate specific to their circumstances. These challenges and struggles surfaced through the emergence of themes in their accounts.
Arguably the most interesting theme to emerge from the respondents’ accounts is how resilient they were in both dealing with the conflict associated with their parents’ divorces and adjusting to the discovery that one (or both) of their parents was gay and/or lesbian later in life. These respondents were forced to examine their belief systems and define new identities that were in conflict with one another. This conflict provided a window into how identities are formed and how individuals define meaning in their lives. While the structural elements of their lives initially dictated how they assigned meanings to their experiences, agency eventually provided the respondents with the freedom to seek out alternative meanings that added value to their experiences. How the respondents were told of their parent’s sexual orientation made a difference in how they were able to initially make meaning of the information they were provided, but their experiences with their gay and lesbian parents were used to define meanings in the identity creation process. If they were told during the process of divorce and under the constraints of a heteronormative value system, they felt a greater degree of stress because of the level of stigmatization associated with their parents’ sexual orientation than if they were told or discovered that their parents were gay or lesbian via their birth narratives.
Although most respondents said they made it through the divorce process “stronger” than they were before the divorce, they also said that the process would have been easier if their parents had realized the harm of not providing positive definitions of their new roles in the family. There was a higher degree of stigmatization felt by this group of respondents. They were challenged with establishing new identities, and they had no positive frames of reference for being children with gay and lesbian parents. In their accounts, they said they felt “lost” and unable to move forward because they did not have the experiences necessary for the identities being thrust upon them. These respondents had to challenge the heteronormative values that had been provided and establish new meanings in their lives. This group of respondents was more likely to manage the impressions of others through the use of coping strategies, like passing, during their childhoods and as they moved into adulthood. Their narratives illustrated how difficult it is to establish a new identity when only negative values or attitudes are available from which to establish meanings. They repeatedly indicated that they “didn’t know how to act,” and this led to an increased amount of confusion and stress. They acknowledged that the divorce process was difficult, but not knowing what their new role would be in the family was the greatest challenge. This challenge was made more difficult when the heterosexual parent defined the gay/lesbian parent according to heteronormative and heterosexist values.
As adults, the sexual orientation of their parents did not prove to be an issue for these respondents. The influence of parental sexual orientation was less important, in relation to childhood outcomes, than qualities of familial relationships and interactions. Their identities were constructed based upon their interactions with a marginalized and stigmatized community, and this has provided meanings in their lives. They incorporated their parents’ sexual orientation into their interpretative processes, and their accounts illustrated how they formed their identities as the children of gay and lesbian parents.
Finally, the findings shed some doubt on theoretical reasoning concerning the importance of gender and sexual orientation in parenting by providing insight into the experiences of those who have gay and lesbian parents. The findings may even hint at certain benefits attached to having gay and lesbian parents. Through their experiences, the gay and lesbian parents in this study provided their children with the knowledge of what it was like to be stigmatized. The respondents gained insights through the experiences of their parents and what it felt like to be a member of a stigmatized group. All of the respondents expressed an intense desire to have others understand the benefits of having gay and lesbian parents as they have experienced them. They described numerous ways in which their parents’ sexual orientation positively influenced their lives. They were proud of their parents. Their authentic expressions of gratitude demonstrated the ways in which they embraced diversity and appreciated their alternative families. Children with gay and lesbian parents develop identities within the parameters that are established by heteronormative values that often fail to recognize the validity of their personal realities.
Through the use of identity theory, it is possible to examine how adult children with alternative families have navigated and/or negotiated their childhood in ways that have enabled them to establish meanings that added value and legitimacy to their lives. This is important when considering how children growing up in an alternative household negotiate meanings and define their identities. The social basis of self and identity is problematic for stigmatized individuals who may perceive negative information about their identities more regularly in their environments than nonstigmatized individuals. Of particular concern is how children, who must hide their identities as children of gay/lesbian parents, are lacking the critically important link between self and society that is necessary for healthy development. The respondents who experienced a divorce lacked the ability to easily reconcile the transition from a heteronormative family structure to an alternative family structure. The primary causes for the stress in these situations were not due to the sexual orientation of parents but to the social environments in which these respondents were forced to maneuver.
Decades of research have failed to reveal significant differences in the adjustment and development of children and adolescents reared by gay and lesbian parents. In fact, data suggest that the influence of parental sexual orientation is less important in relation to childhood outcomes than are the qualities of family processes (Allen and Burrell 1997; Bos et al. 2012; Chan et al. 1998; Crowl et al. 2008; Patterson 2000, 2006; Wainright and Patterson 2006, 2008). The findings in this article support this conclusion. The respondents’ accounts illustrate the importance of family processes and demonstrate how powerful family support is for identity creation and maintenance. Those respondents who experienced a divorce in their childhood were faced with ruptures in significant childhood attachments and strains in the parent–child bond. They developed coping strategies to deal with the disruptions to their bonds with others and the demands of forced autonomy that are the result of the creation of a new identity. Because of their parent’s sexual orientation, they were exposed to nonheteronormative environments and circumstances that affected their creation and maintenance of self. How and when they were told of their parents’ sexual orientation proved to be the fulcrum for how they were able to manage their identities as the children of gay and lesbian parents.
Implications and Future Research
An awareness of the challenges faced by children with gay and lesbian parents should give rise to several topics for future research. Future research could examine the associations between environmental factors, such as neighborhoods, school environments, and social support groups, and the likelihood of being stigmatized. Individual factors such as the willingness to disclose a parent’s sexual orientation might also play a role in whether or not a child experiences the effects of stigmatization. Because the females in this study answered questions about perceived stigmatization more extensively and in more detail than did males, future qualitative research should investigate whether there is a significant difference between the stigmatization experiences of males and females. In addition, since studies have shown that the internalization of negative societal beliefs can produce feelings of shame and/or a fear of being judged, a more in-depth investigation of actual versus anticipated stigmatization is warranted.
Limitations
This research has several limitations. First, this research is not focused on individuals who rejected their parents due to their sexual orientation. Their experiences would have been outside the scope of this research, but would be an important group for follow-up research. Next, there has been a lack of research focused on families with gay fathers. Most of the research to date has focused on children with lesbian parents, so knowledge about children reared by gay fathers is still relatively limited. This group is also underrepresented in this study; only one-third of the respondents in this study had gay fathers. In addition, many studies involving alternative families have employed convenience samples, relied entirely on self-report data, or have not included comparison groups. Once again, this is also the case with this research. For these reasons, the extent to which these findings may generalize to other samples is unknown. This article can only suggest correlations and provide a descriptive narrative of the respondents’ experiences.
Finally, the inclusion of more gay and lesbian families from nonmajority cultures might also have led to more diverse experiences, and perhaps even higher rates of stigmatization in groups that are less tolerant of homosexuality. In addition, this group of respondents had a socioeconomic status (SES) that was primarily middle to upper-middle class. Therefore, the inclusion of more alternative families with a lower SES might have led to a higher rate of stigmatization because children in lower SES families may be targeted more for harassment.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr. Leslie Irvine and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author acknowledges funding from the Arts and Sciences Summer Independent Study Award and the Chet Meeks Summer Research Fund, both of the University of Wyoming.