The Proverbial Closet: Do Faith and Religiosity Affect Coming Out Patterns?

Abstract

Disclosing one’s sexual minority identity or “coming out of the closet” is a key milestone in sexual minority identity development. While scholars have explored how race, gender, class, and other social classifications shape coming out patterns among lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) individuals, we know far less about the effect of religious contexts. To address this shortcoming, we extend existing theoretical insights to better understand how faith and religiosity shape coming out patterns among sexual minorities both independently and collectively. Specifically, we examine how religious affiliation and religious attendance (a measure of religiosity) affect when LGB individuals privately realize and publicly disclose their sexual minority identity. Using data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults, we conduct a series of ordinary least squares regressions on a representative sample of LGB adults (n = 1,136). We find religious contexts—both religious affiliation and attendance—have no independent effect on when a person realizes or publicly discloses their sexual minority identity for the first time. However, evangelical Protestants that frequently attend religious services publicly disclose their sexual minority identity at older ages. These results highlight the social cost of publicly disclosing an LGB identity, especially within conservative religious spaces.

Keywords

lesbian gay bisexual coming out religion religiosity

Introduction

Both privately realizing and publicly disclosing one’s sexual minority identity, or “coming out”, are important milestones for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals (Orne 2011; Sedgwick 1990; Seidman 2004).¹ The timing of these milestones varies across sociocultural identities (e.g., race, class, gender; Grov et al. 2006; Haltom and Ratcliff 2020; Rosario, Rotheram-Borus, and Reid 1996). Yet, how religious contexts, such as faith and religiosity, are associated with sexual minority identity formation remains understudied (Beagan and Hattie 2015; Woodell and Schwadel 2020). Given religious denominations’ range of attitudes toward LGB people and issues, this raises questions about how exposure to certain religious contexts may affect sexual minority identity development (Rivera 2019; Robertson and Dias 2020).

Opinions about sexual minority populations vary extensively across, and within, religious denominations (Bramlett 2012; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison 2006). For example, Protestant and Catholic denominations often hold more conservative views toward same-sex relationships and other LGBTQ+ issues compared to the non-religious and more liberal religious sects (Jelen 2011; Schnabel 2016). However, mainline Protestants (Schnabel 2016) and Catholics (Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek 2010; Whitehead 2010) have shifted their perspectives over time (Human Rights Campaign 2020). In comparison, evangelical Protestants, sometimes referred to as secular Protestants, have consistently held more conservative, or negative, views toward same-sex relationships and practices (Perry and Whitehead 2016; Schwadel and Garneau 2019; Woodell and Schwadel 2020). These negative views are due, in part, to more literal interpretations of the bible and other religious doctrines that marginalize and stigmatize sexual minorities (Perry 2015; Putnam and Campbell 2010; Schwadel and Garneau 2019).

As a response to marginalizing narratives within evangelical Protestant teachings and practices, sexual minorities who identify with these theologically conservative religious groups may choose to come out at later ages to protect themselves from harassment or use religion to “fix” their sexual desires (Beagan and Hattie 2015; Tigert 2009). In addition, queer congregants who not only identify as evangelical Protestants, but also engage in more religious practices and teachings within evangelical spaces, may experience internal conflict that leads to realization and/or disclosure of their sexual minority identity later in life (Levy and Reeves 2011; Schwartz and Lindley 2009; Wetzel 2014). To better understand the association between religious contexts and LGB coming out patterns, we ask: To what extent are religious affiliation and religiosity associated with when LGB individuals privately realize and publicly disclose their sexual minority identity?

To address this question, we use data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults (Suh 2014). We use two dependent variables to capture when an individual “comes out”: (1) age of private realization (i.e., “How old were you when you knew for sure that you were [lesbian, gay, bisexual] . . .?”) and (2) age of public disclosure (i.e., How old were you when you first told a close friend or family member that you were, or might be, [lesbian, gay, bisexual] . . .?”). Religious affiliation is measured using respondents’ self-identification as evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, Catholic, or Agnostic/Atheist/Other.² For religiosity, we use a measure of religious attendance where respondents indicated how often they attended religious services in the past year. Results indicate religious affiliation and religious attendance work hand-in-hand, rather than independently, to shape sexual minority coming out patterns.

Relevant Literature

Coming Out of the Closet

LGB people often have to personally come to terms with and publicly disclose (i.e., tell another person) their sexual minority identity in a process colloquially referred to as “coming out of the closet” (Hunter 2007; Saguy 2020; Sedgwick 1990; Seidman, Meeks, and Traschen 1999). Coming out is not a singular occurrence; rather, it is an ongoing, dynamic process throughout the life course (Hunter 2007; Orne 2011; Rosario et al. 2001). However, there are two pivotal components: (1) becoming aware of one’s sexual orientation for the first time, and (2) disclosing this identity to another person for the first time (Grierson and Smith 2005; Guittar 2014). We refer to the former as “private realization” and the latter as “public disclosure.” The timing of private realization and public disclosure is not a uniform process, but varies extensively based on sociodemographic identities and contexts (Haltom and Ratcliff 2020).

Extant research has found racial/ethnic identity (Grov et al. 2006), gender (Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000), and educational attainment/access (Pearson and Wilkinson 2017) shape when an LGB individual personally realizes their sexual identity and when they choose to disclose this identity to another person (Haltom and Ratcliff 2020). Notwithstanding existing empirical insights (see Burge [2018] and Woodell and Schwadel [2020]), there remains a dearth of research examining the effect religion has on sexual minority experiences, particularly coming out. While scholars have theorized how certain religious contexts—particularly evangelical (or “sectarian”) Protestantism—lead to conflict between one’s religious and sexual minority identity (Page, Lindahl, and Malik 2013; Schwartz and Lindley 2009; Wetzel 2014), the consequences of such conflict remain understudied.

Religion and (Homo)Sexuality

Religious denominations have diverse belief systems that inform how adherents perceive the world (Brown 1962; Deaux 1985; Jelen and Wilcox 1991), including opinions about same-sex relationships and other LGBTQ+ related issues (Bramlett 2012; Kazyak, Burke, and Stange 2018; Olson et al. 2006). LGB individuals have a variety of religious identities (albeit with different rates compared to the overall U.S. population) (Pew Research Center 2013, 2015; Woodell, Kazyak, and Compton 2015). However, LGB individuals who subscribe or are regularly exposed to more conservative religious ideologies (particularly evangelical Protestantism) may experience internal conflicts when reconciling two seemingly divergent identities (Burge 2018; Woodell and Schwadel 2020).

Given how religion acts as a socializing agent (Ano and Vasconcelles 2005; McCullough et al. 2000; Walsh 1998), religious LGB individuals find ways to synthesize their religious and sexual identities (Levy and Reeves 2011; B. L. Love and Tosolt 2013; O’Brien 2004; Wetzel 2014). However, LGB individuals often have difficulty harmonizing their sexual minority and religious identities within more conservative religious denominations due to marginalizing and stigmatizing narratives toward LGBTQ+ populations (Levy and Reeves 2011; B. L. Love and Tosolt 2013). Throughout this integrative process, some religious sexual minorities: (1) reinterpret religious doctrine(s) to assist in their identity negotiation process, (2) find alternative ways to blend their two identities together, and/or (3) suppress their sexual identity to instead embrace their religious identity (Wedow et al. 2017). While scholars have postulated this conflictual relationship may lead to delays in identity development (Schwartz and Lindley 2009; Wetzel 2014), this idea has yet to be examined empirically.

Some denominations hold more conservative beliefs than others on LGB issues which leads to marginalization within those religious settings (Herek 1987; Schwartz and Lindley 2009). In particular, Christian denominations have often expressed explicit disdain for same-sex behaviors and marriage (Adamczyk and Pitt 2009; Olson and Cadge 2002). As a case in point, Protestants have been the slowest moving group in supporting same-sex issues (Schnabel 2016). However, mainline Protestant denominations have expressed support for same-sex issues in recent years (Sherkat et al. 2010; Whitehead 2010; Whitehead and Perry 2015). Meanwhile, evangelical Protestants generally contend widespread acceptance of same-sex relationships is a moral threat that would disrupt “longstanding values of dominant culture” (Button, Rienzo, and Wald 1997; Oldmixon 2005:102; Whitehead and Perry 2015).³

While evangelical Protestants have converged with other Americans across a variety of sociopolitical issues (Carter and Corra 2005; Schwadel and Garneau 2014), they have been outspoken and actively mobilized against LGB-related issues including (anti-)sodomy laws, same-sex marriage, and adoption for same-sex couples (Kane 2003; Sherkat et al. 2010; Whitehead 2010; Whitehead and Perry 2015). In particular, evangelical Protestants view homosexuality as a moral failing wherein sexual minorities choose to engage in same-sex behaviors (Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Whitehead 2010). Evangelical Protestants’ views on homosexuality are due, in part, to literal interpretations of the bible which contribute to negative views toward sexual minorities (Cragun and Sumerau 2015; Perry 2015; Putnam and Campbell 2010; Schwadel and Garneau 2019; A. F. Smith 2012).

On the other hand, the Catholic Church has a complex history surrounding their views about homosexuality. Informed by revered texts, the Catholic Church has asserted romantic (and sexual) relationships should only exist within the confines of heterosexual and monogamous partnerships designed for procreation (Dillon 1999). While Catholic teachings view individuals who engage in same-sex behaviors as “. . . objects [or victims] of derision, prejudice, hatred, and discrimination . . .” (Jelen 2011:208), this view does not mirror the Catholic Church’s historical public stance on same-sex issues. As an institution, the Catholic Church has maintained that same-sex relationships are “sinful” and antithetical to Catholic teachings (Jelen 2011; P. G. Love 1998). However, there has been growing support within the Catholic Church to embrace same-sex issues, similar to that of mainline Protestants (Sherkat et al. 2010; Whitehead 2010; Whitehead and Perry 2015). As a case in point, the current Pope, Pope Francis, has publicly supported same-sex relationships (BBC 2016; Human Rights Campaign 2020); however, this has not led to changes in formal Catholic practices and doctrine (Povoledo 2020). Despite these recent statements, Catholic support for same-sex issues remains well below that of the religiously unaffiliated (Pew Research Center 2015) and experiences of Catholic LGBT adherents remain contentious (Wedow et al. 2017).

Despite historical interdictions toward sexual minorities within Christian (and other) denominations, LGB individuals continue to identify with various religious groups (O’Brien 2004; Pew Research Center 2013). According to survey data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults (Pew Research Center 2013; Suh 2014), 11.5 percent of LGBT individuals in the U.S. identify as an evangelical Protestant, 17.8 percent identify as a mainline Protestant, 11.8 percent identify as a Roman Catholic, 17.3 percent as an Agnostic or Atheist, and 41.7 percent identify as an “Other” religious denomination (see Figure 1).⁴ Despite religious diversity among LGB individuals, there remains a dearth of research on the effect of these religious contexts among sexual minority populations.

Figure 1.

Lesbian, gay, or bisexual religious identity characteristics.

Considering the potential conflict in harmonizing sexual and religious identities, it is possible sexual minorities internalize marginalizing narratives which, in turn, negatively affect coming out milestones. As evangelical Protestants continue to oppose same-sex rights, LGB individuals within evangelical spaces may be acutely affected. In comparison, mainline Protestant and Catholic LGB adherents may be less affected due to growing community support for same-sex issues (Schnabel 2016; Sherkat et al. 2010; Whitehead and Perry 2015). Yet, the story may be more complex:

. . . [B]ecause of historical proscriptions against homosexual behavior within the broader Christian tradition, it is likely that mainline Protestants and Catholics would not differ significantly from evangelicals on [same-sex relationships]. By contrast . . . evangelicals have been particularly opposed to the legal recognition and public legitimation of same-sex families. (Perry and Whitehead 2016:3)

Thus, in the current study, we do not make comparative hypotheses between evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, and Catholics. Instead, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): LGB individuals that identify as evangelical Protestants will privately realize their sexual identities at later ages.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): LGB individuals that identify as evangelical Protestants will publicly disclose their sexual identities at later ages.

Religiosity and (Homo)Sexuality

Beyond religious affiliation, religion scholars have highlighted the importance of religiosity in shaping life experiences and sociopolitical views (P. C. Hill and Wood 1999). Religiosity, or involvement with and/or commitment to religious organizations and teachings, shapes beliefs and behaviors based on respective religious teachings and a given denomination’s interpretation of those teachings (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Johnson et al. 2001; Perry 2015; Perry and Whitehead 2016). Despite insights into how religiosity influences views on LGB issues (Finlay and Walther 2003; Sherkat et al. 2010), it is less clear how sexual minorities’ religiosity is associated with their experiences (Woodell and Schwadel 2020).

To help contextualize, we compare the religious service attendance of sexual minorities to the general U.S. population using data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults (Suh 2014) and the 2012 General Social Survey (Smith, Davern, et al. 2018). Rates of religious attendance are lower across LGB individuals compared to the general U.S. population (see Figure 2; Pew Research Center 2013). However, the majority of LGB individuals (38.11 percent), as well as the general U.S. population (26.5 percent), report they never attend religious services.⁵ Overall, LGB individuals attend religious services less frequently than the average population (Woodell and Schwadel 2020). Despite reduced attendance among broader sexual minority populations, this does not mitigate the potential individual-level impact of religiosity.

Figure 2.

Lesbian, gay, or bisexual and general population religious attendance trends.

Extant research indicates individuals that report more religious commitment or attendance and identify with more conservative religious populations have more negative views of homosexuality (Finlay and Walther 2003; Sherkat et al. 2010). In part, these negative views are due to the constant exposure to religious teachings and denominational norms implicit within frequent religious attendance (Sherkat and Wilson 1995). Specifically, more frequent exposure to literal biblical interpretations within evangelical Protestant communities increases negative views toward same-sex relationships and issues (Barringer, Gay, and Lynxwiler 2013; Finlay and Walther 2003).

Despite these insights into public opinion toward same-sex issues, less is known about how these mechanisms shape the experiences of sexual minorities, including coming out patterns. Inferring from the broader sexual minority and religion literatures (Schwartz and Lindley 2009; Wetzel 2014; Wedow et al. 2017), we would expect sexual minorities who identify as evangelical Protestants and demonstrate more commitment to these practices to experience heightened conflict that, in turn, affects coming out patterns. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses once again focusing on the experiences of LGB evangelical Protestants:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): LGB individuals that identify as evangelical Protestants and report attending religious services more frequently will privately realize their sexual identities at later ages.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): LGB individuals that identify as evangelical Protestants and report attending religious services more frequently will publicly disclose their sexual identities at later ages.

Data and Method

We employ data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults (Suh 2014; fielded from April 11, 2013, to April 29, 2013), a representative sample of LGBT adults in the United States. The Pew Research Center collected data using a nationally representative online research panel (KnowledgePanel) using probability sampling (Pew Research Center 2013:35). As part of the larger KnowledgePanel survey, respondents were asked whether they identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT). If the respondent reported they were LGBT, they were then asked to respond to the 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults for a small incentive ($10). After re-determining eligibility (i.e., LGBT identity) during prescreening, 1,197 potential respondents responded to the survey.

In the current study, we focus on sexual rather than gender minorities. Our intent is not to exclude trans people’s experiences, but instead to avoid conflation of sexual identities and gender identities by recognizing these are independent social identities with unique experiences and timetables (Beemyn and Rankin 2011; Bilodeau and Renn 2005; Garvey and Rankin 2015). Thus, we drop 43 trans respondents from our sample.⁶ Additionally, we limit our sample only to those who reported private realization of or public disclosure of their LGB identity, and we excluded individuals who indicated their LGB identity had not come up in their life at the time of the interview (n = 18).⁷ This led to a final sample of 1,136 LGB respondents.

Dependent Variables

We use two measures for coming out: (1) a continuous age variable based on when the respondent first realized they were LGB (i.e., private realization) and (2) a continuous age variable based on when the respondent first disclosed their LGB identity to another person (i.e., public disclosure).⁸ To measure age of private realization, respondents were asked, “How old were you when you knew for sure that you were [lesbian, gay, bisexual]?” and provided their age (0–99). Similarly, respondents answered “How old were you when you first told a close friend or family member that you were, or might be, [lesbian, gay, bisexual]?” with an age (0–99); we used this variable to gauge public disclosure.

Focal Independent Variables

To measure religious affiliation, respondents reported their current religious identity and could select a range of denominations and sects. To meet necessary statistical standards for our analyses (Aneshensel 2013), we construct a four-category measure of religious affiliation: evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Agnostic/Atheist/Other.⁹ Respondents were asked to report their religious identity which was then collapsed into a four-category measure by the Pew Research Center (Protestant, Catholic, Agnostic/Atheist, and Other). Respondents who indicated they were Protestant or Catholic were then asked a follow-up question about whether they viewed themselves as evangelical and/or born-again. We combined the original four-category measure with the follow-up question to create the four-category measure employed in our analyses (Smith, Sciupac, et al. 2018).¹⁰ However, we recognize the combination of Agnostic/Atheist and “Other” creates a complex, and admittedly broad, religious category.

Table 1 demonstrates why this combination of religious affiliations is necessary. In our subsequent analyses, we conduct a series of interactions between religious affiliation and religious attendance; however, there is lacking variation in religious attendance within Agnostic/Atheist respondents. Only one respondent (<1 percent) who was Agnostic/Atheist reported attending religious services “once or twice a month” and zero respondents who identified as Agnostic/Atheist reported attending religious services “once a week” or “more than once a week.” With the lacking variation in religious attendance among Agnostic/Atheist respondents, we are unable to make adequate inference about the interaction between religious identity and religious attendance on coming out patterns.¹¹ Thus, we combine Agnostic/Atheist responses with the “Other” category to reflect comparisons between the two major religious groups in the U.S.—Protestants (broken down by evangelical and mainline) and Catholics (Pew Research Center 2020)—and those who identify with other, or no, religious groups.¹² We use Agnostic/Atheist/Other as the reference group as it is the largest category in the sample, but conducted additional analyses by shifting the religious affiliation reference group (available upon request).¹³

Table 1.

Cross-Tabulation of Five-Category Religious Affiliation and Religious Attendance.

	Religious attendance^a						Total
Religious Affiliation	Never attend	1	2	3	4	More than once a week	Total
Agnostic/Atheist	152	35	7	1	0	0	195
Catholic	27	30	36	10	30	0	133
Evangelical Protestant	6	27	29	16	32	19	129
Other	214	156	55	21	19	4	469
Mainline Protestant	32	58	50	25	30	5	200
Total	431	306	177	73	111	28	1,126

Religious attendance is measured as: 0 = Never Attend, 1 = Seldom Attend, 2 = A Few Times a Year, 3 = Once or Twice a Month, 4 = Once a Week, and 5 = More Than Once a Week.

For religiosity, respondents indicated how often they attend church or other religious services (excluding weddings and funerals); we refer to this as religious attendance. Although religiosity can include a variety of other religious practices (e.g., prayer), the only measure of religiosity available was religious attendance. On a scale of 0 to 5 (Never Attend = 0, Attend More Than Once a Week = 5), respondents reported how often they attend these services. Originally, Never Attend was “6” and Attend More than Once a Week was “1.” We reverse coded this measure to indicate an increase in value is reflective of more frequent religious attendance.¹⁴

Confounding Factors

We also control for sociodemographic and geographical characteristics. Given research on race, class, and gender differences in coming out patterns (Grov et al. 2006; Haltom and Ratcliff 2020; Rosario et al. 1996; Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000), we control for race (White, Black, Hispanic, Other), educational attainment (High school or less, Some College, Bachelor’s Degree or more), and income at the time of interview, and sex (Male, Female). Additionally, we control for political affiliation (Republican, Independent, Democrat) to account for political variation in support for sexual minority rights (Blasi 2006), the age of the respondent based on known cohort experiences (18–34, 35–54, 55 and older), and the respondent’s location within U.S. geographical regions (West, North, South, and East).

Missing Data

In a few instances, respondents did not provide answers to all survey questions of interest. To account for missing data, we use multiple imputation to impute missing values (Allison 2001). Using the “mi” command in Stata 15.1, we imputed all variables with missing data using 10 imputed datasets.¹⁵

Analytic Method

Given our focus on how religious affiliation and religious attendance are associated with the age of private realization and public disclosure of sexual minority identity, we use a series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions. All results are reported in regression coefficients (b) and their respective standard errors (SEs) (Long and Freese 2014). In the original data, weights were calculated based on survey, sociodemographic, and regional dynamics, and are applied in the subsequent analyses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics¹⁶

Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics of our dependent, independent, and confounding variables. On average, respondents reported privately realizing their sexual identity around 20 years old (M = 19.69, SD = 8.42) and publicly disclosing their identity to another person at 23 years old (M = 23.05, SD = 9.13). Twelve percent of respondents indicated they were Catholic, 11 percent reported they were evangelical Protestants, 18 percent reported they were mainline Protestants, and 59 percent indicated they were Agnostic/Atheist/Other. On average, respondents reported seldomly attending religious services (M = 1.31, SD = 1.41); however, there was significant variation by religious affiliation (see Table 1 and Table A2). Although we do not report the descriptive statistics for the controls in-text, these can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Mean	SD	n
Private Realization	19.69	8.42	1,074
Public Disclosure	23.05	9.13	991
Religious Affiliation			1,127
Catholic	0.12
Evangelical	0.11
Agnostic/Atheist/Other	0.59
Mainline Protestant	0.18
Religious Attendance^a	1.31	1.41	1,131
Education			1,136
High School or less	0.51
Some College	0.13
Bachelor’s Degree or more	0.36
Sex			1,135
Male	0.46
Female	0.54
Race			1,136
Black	0.07
Hispanic	0.10
Other	0.07
White	0.76
Income			1,120
<$30,000	0.32
$30,000 to <$50,000	0.22
$50,000 to <$75,000	0.17
$75,000 to <$100,000	0.12
≥$100,000	0.16
Political Identity			1,132
Democrat	0.58
Independent/Other	0.35
Republican	0.07
Cohort			1,136
≤24 years	0.33
35–54 years	0.34
≥55 years	0.33
Region			1,136
Midwest	0.23
Northeast	0.18
South	0.31
West	0.28

Note. Data are reported prior to imputations; SD = standard deviation.

Religious attendance is measured as: 0 = Never Attend, 1 = Seldom Attend, 2 = A Few Times a Year, 3 = Once or Twice a Month, 4 = Once a week, and 5 = More than Once a Week.

Private Realization Results

Table 3 provides the results from our multivariable analyses. Models 1 and 2 report results from our private realization models. Models 3 and 4 demonstrate results from the public disclosure models. In this section, we focus on the results from the private realization models. First, we discuss the controls, then the religious affiliation and religiosity results. Model 1 examines the main effect of religious affiliation and religiosity, whereas Model 2 reports the interaction between the two.

Table 3.

Regression Results on Effect of Religious Affiliation and Religious Attendance on Coming Out.

	Private realization				Public disclosure
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Predictors	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Religious Affiliation
Agnostic/Atheist/Other	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Catholic	–0.59	0.90	–0.61	1.36	–0.37	1.01	–0.51	1.56
Evangelical Protestant	0.03	1.26	–1.45	1.85	1.42	1.20	–1.63	1.78
Mainline Protestant	0.64	0.77	–0.44	1.09	1.07	0.95	–0.12	1.28
Religious Attendance	0.12	0.22	–0.20	0.33	–0.03	0.27	–0.52	0.37
Interaction Terms
Agnostic/Atheist/Other × Religious Attendance			—	—			—	—
Catholic × Religious Attendance			0.20	0.63			0.37	0.70
Evangelical Protestant × Religious Attendance			0.79	0.64			1.51	0.65*
Mainline Protestant × Religious Attendance			0.77	0.54			0.94	0.71
Education
High School or less	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Some College	0.78	0.70	0.73	0.71	0.14	0.97	0.05	0.97
Bachelor’s Degree or more	2.40	0.73**	2.34	0.73**	1.23	1.08	1.12	1.08
Sex
Male	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Female	4.10	0.60***	4.20	0.62***	2.29	0.75**	2.45	0.74**
Race
White	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	–—
Black	–2.29	1.06*	–2.05	1.08	–2.57	1.21*	–2.23	1.22
Hispanic	–0.85	0.80	–0.78	0.82	–1.25	0.81	–1.10	0.82
Other	0.54	1.36	0.59	1.36	–0.04	1.19	0.03	1.21
Income
<$30,000	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
$30,000 to <$50,000	0.87	0.74	0.87	0.74	0.06	0.96	0.08	0.96
$50,000 to <$75,000	1.46	0.87	1.47	0.88	1.05	0.91	1.04	0.91
$75,000 to <$100,000	1.05	0.98	1.09	0.98	1.52	1.13	1.52	1.13
$100,000 or more	0.49	0.86	0.50	0.86	1.06	0.99	1.08	0.99
Political Identity
Democrat	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Independent/Other	–0.28	0.64	–0.22	0.64	–0.38	0.76	–0.33	0.77
Republican	0.30	1.12	0.37	1.12	2.07	1.16	2.11	1.18
Cohort
≤34 years	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
35–54 years	4.06	0.72***	4.02	0.71***	5.36	0.72***	5.29	0.71***
≥55 years	6.00	0.77***	5.97	0.77***	9.35	1.07***	9.34	1.07***
Region
Midwest	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Northeast	–0.50	0.81	–0.37	0.81	0.42	1.14	0.60	1.12
South	0.16	0.77	0.25	0.78	0.50	0.93	0.60	0.93
West	–0.04	0.84	0.13	0.86	–0.94	0.90	–0.69	0.90
Constant	12.02	1.12***	12.10	1.13***	15.89	1.46***	16.05	1.46***
n	1,136		1,136		1,136		1,136

Note. SE = standard error.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

All results for the controls are based on Model 1. Compared to respondents with a high school or less education, individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher (b = 2.40, SE = 0.73, p < .01) reported realizing their sexual minority identity at a later age. Females, compared to males, reported awareness of their sexual identities at later ages (b = 4.10, SE = 0.60, p < .001). Black respondents, compared to White respondents, reported becoming aware of their identities at earlier ages (b = −2.29, SE = 1.06, p < .05). However, there is no evidence Hispanic or “Other” race respondents experience differences in their timing of private realization, in comparison with White respondents. Compared to those aged 18–34 years, individuals aged 35–54 years (b = 4.06, SE = 0.72, p < .001), as well as those aged 55 years or older (b = 6.00, SE = 0.77, p < .001), reported becoming aware of their sexual minority identities at older ages. There were no significant associations between political identity, income, or regional location on age of private realization.

Although we hypothesized religious affiliation would have a main effect on timing of sexual identity realization (H1a), there is no evidence to support this hypothesis (p > .05). Similarly, there is no evidence to support that religious attendance has any main effect on private realization timing (p > .05). However, the effect of religious affiliation may be contingent upon a respondent’s level of religious commitment or, in our case, religious attendance. To explore this hypothesis, we employ interaction terms to test for moderation (Model 2). Contrary to our hypotheses (H2a), there is no evidence to support a moderating effect between religious affiliation and religious commitment on the timing of private realization of one’s sexual minority identity (p > .05).¹⁷ Put differently, more frequent exposure to particular religious ideologies does not have an effect on one’s personal realization of their LGB identity.

Public Disclosure Results

Models 3 and 4 in Table 3 report the results from the multivariable analyses on age of public disclosure of one’s sexual minority identity (i.e., telling another person). Following the same reporting strategy as the private realization results, we first discuss the controls from our main effects model (Model 3). Females, compared to males, reported publicly disclosing their sexual minority identity at older ages (b = 2.29, SE = 0.75, p < .001). Consistent with the private realization results, Black respondents, relative to White respondents, reported publicly disclosing their sexual minority identity at earlier ages (b = −2.57, SE = 1.21, p < .05). However, this association is no longer present in Model 4 after including the religious identity and religious attendance interaction terms. As for cohort differences, respondents aged 35–54 years (b = 5.36, SE = 0.72, p < .001) and aged 55 years or older (b = 9.35, SE = 1.07, p < .001) reported coming out at older ages, relative to those aged 18–34 years. There is no evidence that education, income, political identity, or regional location has any statistical effect (p > .05) on the age a respondent publicly discloses their sexual minority identity for the first time.

Contrary to our proposed hypothesis (H1b), we find no evidence that religious affiliation or religious attendance have any association with age of public disclosure (p > .05). Although there is no evidence that these factors have any main effect on age of public disclosure, Model 4 confirms our hypothesis (H2b) regarding how religious affiliation and religious attendance interact to affect public disclosure timing. As depicted in Figure 3, respondents who are evangelical Protestants and report attending religious services more often are associated with publicly disclosing their identity at older ages (b = 1.51, SE = 0.65, p < .05). Although mainline Protestants respondents have a similar trajectory, this relationship is not statistically significant (p > .05).¹⁸ These results confirm insights from Perry and Whitehead (2016) regarding how evangelical Protestants may not be distinct from Catholics or mainline Protestants; yet, there remain distinct effects on sexual minority experiences in evangelical spaces compared to (mainly) non-Christian religious identities. Demonstrated in Figure 3, individuals who do not attend religious services at all have a similar predictive age of public disclosure regardless of religious affiliation. However, individuals who are affiliated with evangelical Protestant denominations and attend religious services, on average, publicly disclose at older ages.

Figure 3.

Predicted probabilities of religious identity and religious commitment on age of public disclosure.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our findings provide insight into how religious affiliation and religious attendance are associated with coming out patterns in sexual minority populations as often overlooked factors related to sexual identity development. These results fill a gap in research at the intersection of religion and sexualities. Previous research has focused extensively on how religious affiliation and religiosity affect views toward same-sex issues and can lead to internalized conflict for religious sexual minorities (Bramlett 2012; Olson et al. 2006; Schwadel and Garneau 2019). Our study highlights, and statistically confirms, the effect faith can have on sexual minority development and experiences (B. L. Love and Tosolt 2013; Wedow et al. 2017).

We hypothesized religious identity and religious commitment would have independent (or main) effects on private realization and public disclosure patterns among LGB individuals. Specifically, we theorized respondents who identify as evangelical Protestants would privately realize and publicly disclose at later ages due to conservative denominational views surrounding same-sex relationships. Additionally, we examined how religious affiliation intersects with religious attendance—a measure of religiosity—to understand how increased exposure to certain religious ideologies affect coming out patterns. To this end, we make three major contributions: First, religious affiliation and religious attendance have no main, or independent, effect on the coming out patterns, private or public, of LGB individuals. Second, LGB individuals publicly disclose their LGB identity at later ages when they identify with more conservative religions (in our case, evangelical Protestantism) and are exposed to these teachings more frequently. Third, mainline Protestant and Catholic ideologies, compared to individuals who identify as Other/Agnostic/Atheist, have no statistical effect on coming out patterns in LGB adults and there is also no evidence that the trajectories of coming out are statistically different between these denominations and evangelical Protestants (Perry and Whitehead 2016).

We find no evidence to conclude that an individual’s religious identity nor their religious commitment is associated with private or public coming out milestones. Despite some religious groups’ negative views and opinions toward sexual minorities, particularly evangelical Protestants (Olson et al. 2006; Sherkat et al. 2010), our results indicate religious affiliation has no independent effect on private and public coming out processes. Why might this be? As Finlay and Walther (2003) and Sherkat et al. (2010) demonstrate, it is not just about just being a part of or identifying with a religious group that leads to negative views about same-sex relationships. Solely identifying as an evangelical Protestant, or any other religious denomination, does not necessarily lead to conflicting religious and sexual identities (Levy and Reeves 2011; B. L. Love and Tosolt 2013). Rather, more frequent exposure to a particular religious groups’ ideology (e.g., religious attendance), particularly those with more conservative views toward same-sex issues, may be more formative in causing conflict between these identities.

Despite lacking main effects, we find religious identity and religious attendance intersect. However, this is only the case for public disclosure and not private realization. Individuals who identify as evangelical Protestants and report higher levels of religious commitment do not report privately realizing their sexual minority identity at later ages. We posit this lacking association is related the minimal external social costs (e.g., loss of friendships) of private realization. Privately realizing one’s identity is an intra-personal experience. Realizing you are LGB is a personal process through which an individual adopts a particular societal label, such as LGB (or other sexual identities), to their sexual desires (Dubé 2000). To this end, there may be personal costs to one’s mental health particularly if the realization is taboo in light of one’s religious identity (Page et al. 2013).

In contrast, public disclosure requires telling other people about one’s sexual minority identity—an inter-personal experience—which could have social consequences (Waters 2013), such as religious excommunication (Tigert 2009) or loss of friendships (Rhoads 1994; Rickards and Wuest 2006). As our results indicate, people who identify as evangelical Protestants and more regularly attend religious services publicly disclose for the first time at older ages on average. Since evangelical Protestant denominations often hold more negative opinions toward sexual and gender minority populations (Oldmixon 2005; Schnabel 2016), LGB evangelical Protestants who regularly attend religious services may be frequently exposed to stigmatizing narratives concerning same-sex identities and relationships while simultaneously developing social connections with fellow congregants (Sherkat and Wilson 1995). Although not accessible in our current data, religious friendship networks and social support shape one’s social well-being (Ano and Vasconcelles 2005; McCullough et al. 2000; Walsh 1998). Thus, sexual minorities heavily engaged in more conservative religious contexts, particularly evangelical Protestantism, may experience internal conflict between their sexual and religious identities which delays their public disclosure to avoid (real or perceived) harassment and discrimination (Levy and Reeves 2011; B. L. Love and Tosolt 2013). Although we find this association based on contemporaneous religious identities and attendance, it may be influenced more heavily by religious practices during childhood and adolescence (Woodell and Schwadel 2020).

Finally, there remains important nuance regarding the lacking statistical association between mainline Protestants and Catholics compared to evangelical Protestants and those who identify as Agnostic/Atheist/Other. While we did not propose any hypotheses specific to mainline Protestants and Catholics, the findings (or lack thereof) can be attributed to shifting patterns in attitudes toward same-sex issues within these denominations since the 1990s (Schnabel 2016). While mainline Protestant and Catholics have historically held negative views toward same-sex relationships (Perry and Whitehead 2016), there have been ideological changes in recent years to embrace and support same-sex issues (Sherkat et al. 2010; Whitehead 2010; Whitehead and Perry 2015). Thus, it makes sense that mainline Protestant and Catholic respondents may not experience any effects—positive or negative—in their coming out events, comparatively so. Conversely, mainline Protestantism and Catholicism have a long history of opposing same-sex relationships that still resonates today even if not explicitly stated in religious practices and teachings/interpretations (Perry and Whitehead 2016). When comparing mainline Protestants and Catholics to evangelical Protestant patterns, there is no evidence that coming out milestones—private or public—are significantly different (results available upon request). Overall, the effect of mainline Protestantism and Catholicism, especially given the scope of the survey (Pew Research Center 2013), remains complex. Longitudinal data, or data asking respondents to recall their religious contexts during childhood/adolescence, could help to shed light on the changing landscape toward same-sex issues across denominations and the effects these have on LGB individuals (see Woodell and Schwadel [2020] for an example).

Limitations

As with all research, this study comes with limitations. First, the data collected here are cross-sectional and ask respondents to recall the timing of past experiences (e.g., private realization, public disclosure). Although we find religious contexts are not associated with coming out patterns, current religious affiliation and religiosity may not capture how adolescence shapes later life outcomes (Woodell and Schwadel 2020), such as coming out. Given the limited longitudinal survey data on queer populations (Haltom and Ratcliff 2020; Rosario et al. 2001), this article is a preliminary step in understanding how religion and sexual identity development are related. There is a critical need to more systematically collect data on queer populations, especially longitudinal data starting at earlier life stages (e.g., adolescents). Similarly, we cannot make causal inference from these data. Religious identities and attendance were measured based on contexts at the time of data collection, while coming out was asked retrospectively. However, we can look to other data sources to support our findings. For example, adolescents within the United States often take on their family’s religious practices (Pew Research Center 2020) and tend to have a similar religious affiliation in young adulthood compared to adolescence (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Percent of Similarity in Religious Affiliation among Adolescence and Young Adulthood over Time.

	Add Health (Wave III)^a
Add Health (Wave I)^b	None/Atheist/Agnostic	Protestant	Catholic	Jewish	Hindu	Muslim	Other
None/Atheist/Agnostic	61.8	22.8	8.1	0.4	0.0	0.2	6.7
Protestant	14.0	69.8	5.1	0.1	0.0	0.1	10.9
Catholic	11.7	8.5	76.9	0.0	0.1	0.0	2.9
Jewish	13.6	2.3	0.0	79.6	0.0	0.0	4.6
Hindu	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0
Muslim	17.7	11.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	58.8	11.8
Other	22.7	55.5	8.6	1.6	0.0	0.0	11.7

Note. n = 4,705; Data come from National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Results are the reported row percentages (%); All respondents provided data in Wave I and Wave III.

Average age of respondents at Wave III was 22 (Min = 18, Max = 28).

Average age of respondents at Wave I was 16 (Min = 12, Max = 21).

Second, we only examine LGB adults who have already come out both privately and publicly. By excluding those respondents who have not yet come out publicly, but have privately realized their identities, we may be missing important differences. Additionally, we acknowledge the limited number of sexual identities included in the analyses, a restriction of the data set. Much work is needed to expand scholarly knowledge about coming out processes and variations across demographic characteristics of other sexual identities (e.g., queer, pansexual, and asexual). Regarding the temporality of data collection, we recognize the data were collected in 2013 prior to two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions: same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015) and LGBT workplace protections (Bostock v. Clayton County 2020). Despite these achievements, LGBTQ+ rights are still relevant (and at risk) given appointments of anti-LGBTQ+ justices to state and federal courts during the Trump Administration, as well as formally adopted stances on “religious freedoms” and opposition to same-sex marriage by the Republican National Convention in 2016 and 2020 (Barnes 2020; Karson and Cunningham 2020). While there have been major cultural and policy shifts in LGBTQ+ rights since 2013 (Durso et al. 2017; Morris 2020; Totenberg 2020), the 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults remains one of the only datasets that asks questions about coming out experiences, particularly the age an individual realized their sexual identity and came out to another person publicly.

Finally, private realization is an assumed precursor to public disclosure of one’s LGB identity. However, we are unable to control for this in our models. Age of private realization and age of public disclosure are highly correlated (r = .60), and the temporal ordering of the two is unclear given how coming out is a continual process (Orne 2011). Thus, age of private realization and the age of public disclosure results should be interpreted for each unique process rather than theorizing about any link, or difference, between the two. Future research should explore how time between private realization and public disclosure varies across social classifications and what these measures mean, both theoretically and empirically. Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings are a call for future research to explore nuances in sexual identity formation within queer populations. Our analyses extend understanding about the role religion in the lives of sexual minority populations and highlights the critical need for detailed, longitudinal data to better understand the lives of queer individuals.

Conclusion

Overall, our results demonstrate how denominations’ negative or conservative views toward sexual minorities affect sexual identity development, particularly public disclosure of one’s LGB identity. As we have seen in the Methodist and Catholic Churches recently (Povoledo 2020; Robertson and Dias 2020), recognition and discussion of same-sex issues are becoming more prevalent within religious spaces. However, some denominations remain regressive in their perspectives about same-sex issues which has personal and social consequences for developmental milestones in LGBTQ+ populations. Religious organizations have the opportunity to construct spaces for queer and questioning individuals, especially adolescents, that support sexual identity exploration and development. As discourses surrounding queer issues continue to permeate religious spaces, it would bode well of religious institutions to examine their ideological stances and, ultimately, provide support to LGBTQ+ congregants by offering them the opportunity to safely explore, grow, and thrive.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A2.

Cross-Tabulation of Religious Identity and Religious Attendance.

	Religious attendance^a						Total
Religion Affiliation	Never attend (0)	1	2	3	4	More than once a week (5)	Total
Catholic	27	30	36	10	30	0	133
Evangelical Protestant	6	27	29	16	32	19	129
Agnostic/Atheist/Other	366	191	62	22	19	4	664
Mainline Protestant	32	58	50	25	30	5	200
Total	431	306	177	73	111	28	1,126

Religious attendance is measured as: 0 = Never Attend, 1 = Seldom Attend, 2 = A Few Times a Year, 3 = Once or Twice a Month, 4 = Once a week, and 5 = More than Once a Week.

Acknowledgements

Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. We would like to acknowledge Jennifer Andersen, Teh’Quin Forbes, Colleen Ray, and Philip Schwadel for their comments on earlier drafts, the anonymous reviewers and editors at Social Currents, and the Pew Research Center for providing the data employed in this article. Both authors have contributed equally to the construction of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Adamczyk

Amy

Pitt

Cassady

. 2009. “Shaping Attitudes about Homosexuality: The Role of Religion and Cultural Context.” Social Science Research 38(2):338–51.

Allison

Paul D.

2001. Missing Data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Aneshensel

Carol S.

2013. Theory-based Data Analysis for the Social Sciences. New York: Sage Publications.

Ano

Gene G.

Vasconcelles

Erin B.

2005. “Religious Coping and Psychological Adjustment to Stress: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 61(4):461–80.

Barnes

Robert

. 2020. “Barrett’s Evasiveness Alarms LGBTQ Advocates Fearful Supreme Court May Roll Back Protections.” The Washington Post, October. Retrieved January 15, 2021 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/amy-coney-barrett-gay-rights/2020/10/24/55064586-153b-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html).

Barringer

Mandi Nicole

Gay

David A.

Lynxwiler

John P.

2013. “Gender, Religiosity, Spirituality, and Attitudes toward Homosexuality.” Sociological Spectrum 33(3):240–57.

BBC. 2016. “Pope Francis Says Church Should Apologise to Gay People.” June. Retrieved September 20, 2020 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36636845).

Beagan

Brenda L.

Hattie

Brenda

. 2015. “Religion, Spirituality, and LGBTQ Identity Integration.” Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling 9(2):92–117.

Beemyn

Genny

Rankin

Susan

. 2011. The Lives of Transgender People. New York: Columbia University Press.

10.

Bilodeau

Brent L.

Renn

Kristen A.

2005. “Analysis of LGBT Identity Development Models and Implications for Practice.” New Directions for Student Services 111(3):25–39.

11.

Blasi

Anthony J.

2006. “Religion, Morale individualle et politique Américaine.” Social Compass 53(3):367–78.

12.

Bostock v. Clayton County. 2020. No 17-1617, 723 Fed. Appx. 964.

13.

Bramlett

Brittany H.

2012. “The Cross-pressures of Religion and Contact with Gays and Lesbians, and Their Impact on Same-sex Marriage Opinion.” Politics and Policy 40(1):13–42.

14.

Brown

L. B.

1962. “A Study of Religious Belief.” British Journal of Psychology 53:259–72.

15.

Burge

Ryan P.

2018. “To Be of One Mind? Integrating an LGB Orientation with Evangelical Beliefs.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8(3):554–75.

16.

Button

James W.

Rienzo

Barbara Ann

Wald

Kenneth D.

1997. Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles over Gay Rights in American Communities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

17.

Carter

J. Scott

Corra

Mamadi

. 2005. “Changing Attitudes toward Women, 1972–1998: The Liberalization of Religious Fundamentalists.” Michigan Sociological Review 19(3):19–44.

18.

Cragun

Ryan T.

Sumerau

2015. “The Last Bastion of Sexual and Gender Prejudice? Sexualities, Race, Gender, Religiosity, and Spirituality in the Examination of Prejudice Toward Sexual and Gender Minorities.” Journal of Sex Research 52(7):821–34.

19.

Deaux

Kay

. 1985. “Sex and Gender.” Annual Review of Psychology 36(1):49–81.

20.

Dillon

Michelle

. 1999. Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith, and Power. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Dubé

Eric M

. 2000. “The Role of Sexual Behavior in the Identification Process of Gay and Bisexual Males.” The Journal of Sex Research 37(2):123–32.

22.

Durso

Laura E.

Rooney

Caitlin

Gruberg

Sharita

Singh

Sejal

Mirza

Shabab Ahmed

Bewkes

Frank J.

Ridings

Aaron

Clark

Daniel

. 2017. “Advancing LGBTQ Equality through Local Executive Action.” Center for American Progress. Retrieved January 15, 2021 (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/reports/2017/08/25/437280/advancing-lgbtq-equality-local-executive-action/).

23.

Finlay

Barbara

Walther

Carol S.

2003. “The Relation of Religious Affiliation, Service Attendance, and Other Factors to Homophobic Attitudes among University Students.” Review of Religious Research 44(4):370–93.

24.

Frendreis

John

Tatalovich

Raymond

. 2011. “Validating Protestant Denominational Classifications Using the Chaves Inerrancy Scale.” Politics and Religion 4(2):355–65.

25.

Garvey

Jason C.

Rankin

Susan R.

2015. “The Influence of Campus Experiences on the Level of Outness among Trans-spectrum and Queer-spectrum Students.” Journal of Homosexuality 62(3):374–93.

26.

Gottfredson

Michael R.

Hirschi

Travis

. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

27.

Grierson

Jeffrey

Smith

Anthony M. A

. 2005. “In from the Outer Generational Differences in Coming Out and Gay Identity Formation.” Journal of Homosexuality 50(1):53–70.

28.

Grov

Christian

Bimbi

David S.

Nanín

José E.

Parsons

Jeffrey T.

2006. “Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Generational Factors Associated with the Coming-out Process among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals.” Journal of Sex Research 43(2):115–21.

29.

Guittar

Nicholas A.

2014. Coming Out: The New Dynamics. Boulder, CO: First Forum Press.

30.

Haider-Markel

Donald P.

Joslyn

Mark R.

2008. “Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(2):291–310.

31.

Haltom

Trenton M.

Ratcliff

Shawn

. 2020. “Effects of Sex, Race, and Education on the Timing of Coming Out among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the U.S.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. Published electronically July. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01776-x.

32.

Herek

Gregory M.

1987. “Religious Orientation and Prejudice: A Comparison of Racial and Sexual Attitudes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13(1):34–44.

33.

Hill

Peter C.

Wood

Ralph W.

Jr.

1999. Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

34.

Hill

Terrance D.

Moulton

Benjamin E.

Burdette

Amy M.

2004. “Conservative Protestantism and Attitudes toward Homosexuality: Does Political Orientation Mediate this Relationship?” Sociological Focus 37(1):59–70.

35.

Human Rights Campaign. 2020. “Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Roman Catholic Church.” Retrieved September 20, 2020 (https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-roman-catholic-church).

36.

Hunter

Ski

. 2007. Coming Out and Disclosures: LGBT Persons across the Life Span. New York: The Hawthorn Press.

37.

Jelen

Ted G.

2011. “Catholicism, Homosexuality, and Same-sex Marriage in the United States.” Pp. 207–18 in Faith, Politics, and Sexual Diversity in Canada and the United States, edited by D. Rayside and C. Wilcox. Vancouver, BC, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

38.

Jelen

Ted G.

Wilcox

Clyde

. 1991. “Religious Dogmatism among White Christians: Causes and Effects.” Review of Religious Research 33(1):32–46.

39.

Johnson

Byron R.

Jang

Sung Joon

Larson

David B.

Spencer De

. 2001. “Does Adolescent Religious Commitment Matter? A Reexamination of the Effect of Religiosity on Delinquency.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(1):22–44.

40.

Kane

Melinda D.

2003. “Social Movement Policy Success: Decriminalizing State Sodomy Laws, 1969-1998.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 8(3):313–34.

41.

Karson

Kendall

Cunningham

Meg

. 2020. “RNC Moves to Keep 2016 Platform Intact through 2024, Controversies and All.” ABC News, June. Retrieved January 15, 2021 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-moves-2016-platform-intact-2024-controversies/story?id=71218640).

42.

Kazyak

Emily

Burke

Kelsy

Stange

Mathew

. 2018. “Logics of Freedom: Debating Religious Freedom Laws and Gay and Lesbian Rights.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 4:1–18.

43.

Levy

Denise L.

Reeves

Patricia

. 2011. “Resolving Identity Conflict: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Individuals with a Christian Upbringing.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 23(1):53–68.

44.

Long

Scott J.

Freese

Jeremy

. 2014. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. 3rd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

45.

Love

Bettina L.

Tosolt

Brandelyn

. 2013. “Go Underground or in Your Face: Queer Students’ Negotiation of All-girls Catholic Schools.” Journal of LGBT Youth 10(3):186–207.

46.

Love

Patrick G.

1998. “Cultural Barriers Facing Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Students at a Catholic College.” Journal of Higher Education 69(3):298–323.

47.

McCullough

Michael E.

Hoyt

William T.

Larson

David B.

Koenig

Harold G.

Thoresen

Carl

. 2000. “Religious Involvement and Mortality: A Meta-analytic Review.” Health Psychology 19(3):211–22.

48.

Morris

Bonnie J.

2020. “History of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Social Movements.” American Psychological Association. Retrieved January 15, 2021 (https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/history).

49.

Obergefell v. Hodges. 2015. 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2593–95.

50.

O’Brien

Jodi

. 2004. “Wrestling the Angel of Contradiction: Queer Christian Identities.” Culture and Religion 5(2):179–202.

51.

Oldmixon

Elizabeth Anne

. 2005. Uncompromising Positions: God, Sex, and the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

52.

Olson

Laura R.

Cadge

Wendy

. 2002. “Talking about Homosexuality: The Views of Mainline Protestant Clergy.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(1):153–67.

53.

Olson

Laura R.

Cadge

Wendy

Harrison

James T.

2006. “Religion and Public Opinion about Same-sex Marriage.” Social Science Quarterly 87(2):340–60.

54.

Orne

Jason

. 2011. “‘You Will Always Have to “Out” Yourself’: Reconsidering Coming out through Strategic Outness.” Sexualities 14(6):641–703.

55.

Page

Matthew J. L.

Lindahl

Kristin M.

Malik

Neena M.

2013. “The Role of Religion and Stress in Sexual Identity and Mental Health among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 23(4):665–77.

56.

Pearson

Jennifer

Wilkinson

Lindsey

. 2017. “Same-sex Sexuality and Educational Attainment: The Pathway to College.” Journal of Homosexuality 64(4):538–76.

57.

Perry

Samuel L.

2015. “Bible Beliefs, Conservative Religious Identity, and Same-sex Marriage Support: Examining Main and Moderating Effects.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 54(4):792–813.

58.

Perry

Samuel L.

Whitehead

Andrew L.

2016. “Religion and Public Opinion Toward Same-sex Relations, Marriage, and Adoption: Does the Type of Practice Matter?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 55(3):637–51.

59.

Pew Research Center. 2013. A Survey of LGBT Adults. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

60.

Pew Research Center. 2015. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Americans Differ from General Public in Their Religious Affiliations. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

61.

Pew Research Center. 2020. “Religious Landscape Study.” Retrieved September 20, 2020 (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study).

62.

Povoledo

Elisabetta

. 2020. “Vatican Clarifies Pope Francis’s Comments on Same-sex Unions.” The New York Times, November. Retrieved November 6 2020 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/world/europe/pope-gay-civil-unions.html).

63.

Putnam

Robert D.

Campbell

David E.

2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster.

64.

Rhoads

Rhonda A.

1994. Coming Out in College: The Struggle for a Queer Identity. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

65.

Rickards

Tracey

Wuest

Judith

. 2006. “The Process of Losing and Regaining Credibility When Coming-out at Midlife.” Health Care for Women International 27(6):530–47.

66.

Rivera

Lisbeth M.

2019. “United Methodist Church Meets to Decide Future of LGBTQ Members in the Church.” Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved February 6, 2021 (https://www.hrc.org/blog/united-methodist-church-meets-to-decide-future-of-lgbtq-members).

67.

Robertson

Campbell

Dias

Elizabeth

. 2020. “United Methodist Church Announces Plan to Split Over Same-sex Marriage.” The New York Times, January 3. Retrieved February 6, 2010 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/methodist-split-gay-marriage.html).

68.

Roof

Wade

McKinney

William

. 1987. American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

69.

Rosario

Margaret

Hunter

Joyce

Maguen

Shira

Gwadz

Marya

Smith

Raymond

. 2001. “The Coming-out Process and Its Adaptational and Health-related Associations among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youths: Stipulation and Exploration of a Model.” American Journal of Community Psychology 29:133–60.

70.

Rosario

Margaret

Rotheram-Borus

Mary Jane

Reid

Helen

. 1996. “Gay-related Stress and Its Correlates among Gay and Bisexual Male Adolescents of Predominantly Black and Hispanic Background.” Journal of Community Psychology 24(2):136–59.

71.

Saguy

Abigail C.

2020. Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are. New York: Oxford University Press.

72.

Savin-Williams

Ritch C.

Diamond

Lisa M.

2000. “Sexual Identity Trajectories among Sexual-minority Youths: Gender Comparisons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(6):607–27.

73.

Schnabel

Landon

. 2016. “Gender and Homosexuality Attitudes across Religious Groups from the 1970s to 2014: Similarity, Distinction, and Adaptation.” Social Science Research 55:31–47.

74.

Schwadel

Philip

Garneau

Christopher R. H.

2014. “An Age-period-cohort Analysis of Political Tolerance in the United States.” The Sociological Quarterly 55(2):421–52.

75.

Schwadel

Philip

Garneau

Christopher R. H.

2019. “Sectarian Religion and Political Tolerance in the United States.” Sociology of Religion 80(2):168–93.

76.

Schwartz

Jonathan P.

Lindley

Lori D.

2009. “Religious Fundamentalism and Attachment: Prediction of Homophobia.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion Research 15(2):145–57.

77.

Sedgwick

Eve

. 1990. The Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

78.

Seidman

Steven

. 2004. Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life. New York: Routledge.

79.

Seidman

Steven

Meeks

Chet

Traschen

Francie

. 1999. “Beyond the Closet? The Changing Social Meaning of Homosexuality in the United States.” Sexualities 2(1):9–34.

80.

Sherkat

Darren E.

De Vries

Kylan Mattias

Creek

Stacia

. 2010. “Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-sex Marriage.” Social Science Quarterly 91(1):80–98.

81.

Sherkat

Derek E.

Wilson

John

. 1995. “Preferences, Constraints, and Choices in Religious Markets: An Examination of Religious Switching and Apostasy.” Social Forces 73(3):993–1026.

82.

Smith

Andrew F.

2012. “Secularity and Biblical Literalism: Confronting the Case for Epistemological Diversity.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 71:205–19.

83.

Smith

Gregory

Sciupac

Elizabeth Podrebarac

Gecewicz

Claire

Hackett

Conrad

. 2018. “Comparing the RELTRAD and Born-again/Evangelical Self-identification Approaches to Measuring American Protestantism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 57(4):830–47.

84.

Smith

Tom W.

Davern

Michael

Freese

Jeremy

Morgan

Stephen

. 2018. General Social Surveys, 1972-2018 [Machine-readable Data File]. Principal Investigator: Tom W. Smith, Co-Principal Investigators: Michael Davern, Jeremy Freese, and Stephen Morgan, and Sponsored by National Science Foundation. National Opinion Research Center ed. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago [producer and distributor]. gssdataexplorer.norc.org.

85.

Steensland

Brian

Park

Jerry Z.

Regnerus

Mark D.

Robinson

Lynn D.

Xilcox

W. Bradford

Woodberry

Robert D.

2000. “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.” Social Forces 79(1):291–318.

86.

Suh

Michael

. 2014. 2013 Survey of LGBT Adults. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

87.

Tigert

Leanne M.

2009. Coming Out through Fire: Surviving the Trauma of Homophobia. Searcy, AR: Resource Publications.

88.

Totenberg

Nina

. 2020. “Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory to LGBTQ Employees.” npr, June. Retrieved January 15, 2021 (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees).

89.

Walsh

Anthony

. 1998. “Religion and Hypertension: Testing Alternative Explanations among Immigrants.” Behavioral Medicine 24(3):122–30.

90.

Waters

Richard D.

2013. Coming Out of the Closet: Exploring LGBT Issues in Strategic Communication with Theory and Research. New York: Peter Lang.

91.

Wedow

Robbee

Schnabel

Landon

Wedow

Lindsey K. D

Konieczny

Mary Ellen

. 2017. “‘I’m Gay and I’m Catholic’: Negotiating Two Complex Identities at a Catholic University.” Sociology of Religion: A Quarterly Review 78(3):289–317.

92.

Wetzel

Dominic

. 2014. “Is It Possible to Be Queer and Catholic? Overcoming the ‘Silence of Sodom.’” Pp. 61–100 in Queering Religion, Religious Queers, edited by Taylor

Snowdon

New York: Routledge.

93.

Whitehead

Andrew L.

2010. “Male and Female He Created Them: Gender Traditionalism, Masculine Images of God, and Attitudes towards Same-sex Unions.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 53(3):579–96.

94.

Whitehead

Andrew L.

Perry

Samuel L.

2015. “A More Perfect Union? Christian Nationalism and Support for Same-sex Unions.” Sociological Perspectives 85(3):422–40.

95.

Woodell

Brandi

Kazyak

Emily

Compton

D’Lane

. 2015. “Reconciling LGB and Christian Identities in the Rural South.” Social Sciences 48:859–78.

96.

Woodell

Brandi

Schwadel

Philip

. 2020. “Changes in Religiosity among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Emerging Adults.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59(2):379–96.

The Proverbial Closet: Do Faith and Religiosity Affect Coming Out Patterns?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Relevant Literature

Coming Out of the Closet

Religion and (Homo)Sexuality

Religiosity and (Homo)Sexuality

Data and Method

Dependent Variables

Focal Independent Variables

Confounding Factors

Missing Data

Analytic Method

Results

Descriptive Statistics 16

Private Realization Results

Public Disclosure Results

Discussion and Conclusion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

References

Descriptive Statistics¹⁶