10 1111@jomf 12607

Corinne Reczek The Ohio State University
Sexual- and Gender-Minority Families:

A 2010 to 2020 Decade in Review
This paper critically reviews research on sexual transgender, queer, asexual, and intersex peo-
and gender minority (SGM) families, including ple, are a key site of scholarship for family
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asex- researchers. (See Table 1 for definitions of key
ual, intersex, and other (LGBTQAI+) families, terms.) Interest in SGM families has grown sig-
in the past decade (2010–2020). First, this paper nificantly since the first two Decades in Review
details the three primary subareas that make up on SGM families in 2000 and 2010, wherein
the majority of research on SGM families: (1) scholars focused on the form and functioning
SGM family of origin relationships, (2) SGM of gay and lesbian cohabiting relationships and
intimate relationships, and (3) SGM-parent fam- child outcomes within these families (Biblarz &
ilies. Next, this paper highlights three main gaps Savci, 2010; Patterson, 2000). This two-decade
in this decade’s research: (1) a focus on gay, focus on gay and lesbian intimate relationship
lesbian, and same-sex families (and to a lesser functioning and the effects of these family
extent bisexual and transgender families) and forms on children is not surprising given the
a lack of attention to the diverse family ties of concurrent debates about legalizing marriage
single SGM people as well as intersex, asex- between individuals of the same-sex and the
ual, queer, gender non-binary/non-conforming, potential effects of raising children in gay and
polyamorous, and other SGM families; (2) an lesbian households.
emphasis on white, socioeconomically advan- This 2020 Decade in Review marks a new
taged SGM people and a failure to account for chapter in SGM family life and research. This
the significant racial-ethnic and socioeconomic decade witnessed significant growth and diver-
diversity in the SGM population; and (3) a lack sification in the SGM population, with more
of integration of SGM experiences across the people identifying as gender and sexual minori-
life course, from childhood to old age. Future ties than in previous decades (Bridges & Moore,
research should refine the measurement and 2018; Gates, 2014). Moreover, 2010 to 2020 was
analysis of SGM family ties with novel theory a decade of major historical events such as mar-
and data across the methodological spectrum. riage legalization, increased social acceptance
of sexual minorities, and increased stigmatiza-
Sexual- and gender-minority (SGM) families, tion of gender minorities via “bathroom bills”
including families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and the transgender military ban. At the same
time, data innovations in high-quality national
data sources have allowed scholars to examine
Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 238
SGM families at the population level, and novel
Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Ave Mall, Columbus, OH qualitative data sources reveal the diversity of
43202 (reczek.2@osu.edu). SGM families (Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer,
Key Words: gender, intergenerational relationships, intimate 2013). With these new robust data sources in
relationships, LGBTQ, sexuality, well-being. hand, scholars have not only refined previous
300 Journal of Marriage and Family 82 (February 2020): 300–325
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12607
Sexual- and Gender-Minority Families 301
Table 1. Key Terms
Key term Definition
SGM Sexual and gender minority (see below)

Gender minority A person whose gender identity does not align with normative gender expectations; minority
status reflects both a statistical minority and the reduced access to resources and power as a
result of this status
Sexual minority A person whose sexual identity, attraction, or behavior does not align with heterosexuality;
minority status reflects both a statistical minority and the reduced access to resources and
power as a result of this status
LGBTQAI+ Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, asexual, intersex, and other sexual- and
gender-minority identities
Cisgender A person whose assigned sex at birth aligns with their gender identity and expression
Transgender A person whose gender identity is other than their sex assigned at birth or someone who takes a
transidentity including transwoman, transman, or transgender
Gender queer A person who eschews the binary sex and gender system; a person whose gender identity and
expression lies outside of the system of normative gender categories of man and woman
Gender nonconforming A person whose gender expression and identity differs from or lies outside of the gender
categories of man and woman
Asexual A person who does not have sexual attraction to or sexual interest in other people. A person
who does not prioritize sexuality in relationships
Heterosexual A person who is primarily attracted to people of a different sex a person who identifies as
heterosexual or straight
Bisexual A person who is attracted to both men and women; a person who is attracted to people of any
gender
Pansexual A person who is attracted to people of any gender
Intersex A person born with a combination of sex traits that are typically presumed to be either
exclusively male or female (e.g., physical genitalia or gonads incongruent with sex
chromosomes)
Polyamorous A person who rejects monogamy as an imperative and is willing to be romantically involved
with more than one person at once
decades of research on gay and lesbian romantic health. In the final section, I detail research on
relationships and child well-being but also they SGM parents and parenting and synthesize the
have moved beyond the gay and lesbian couple scientific consensus on child outcomes in SGM
context to explore new lines of inquiry including families.
research on gender-minority families and family The mission of this Decade in Review is
ties in SGM youth and adolescence. to not only review what is known but also to
To detail these significant advances, this compel research progress in the next decade.
review is centered around the following three Therefore, in the final section of the article, I
primary subareas that make up the vast major- highlight the following three main gaps that
ity of research on SGM families today: (a) persist in the existing literature: (a) a primary
SGM family-of-origin relationships, (b) SGM focus on same-sex and gay and lesbian families
intimate relationships, and (c) SGM-parent (and to a lesser extent bisexual and transgender
families. In the first section, I review research families) and a lack of focus on other sexual
on SGM youth and adult family-of-origin and gender minorities, such as intersex, asexual,
relationships and outline the growing body queer, and polyamorous families as well as
of research on the effect of family of origin the families of single SGM people; (b) a focus
on SGM mental and physical well-being. In on White, socioeconomically advantaged SGM
the second section, I update the research on people and a failure to account for the significant
SGM intimate relationships in mid-life, with racial-ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in the
topics ranging from relationship formation to SGM population; and (c) a lack of integration
relationship dissolution to mental and physical of SGM families across the life course, from
302 Journal of Marriage and Family
childhood to old age. Key questions for future satisfaction with parents after coming out,
research are identified in each section. Explic- they are more likely to report coming out an
itly addressing these limitations in the next additional time to reinforce and clarify their
decade will create a more inclusive, robust, and sexual identity (Denes & Afifi, 2014). Notably,
impactful research area. I note that this review parent–child dynamics during coming out may
is not exhaustive but instead attempts to create a differ by the gender of the parent; relationships
coherent account of the research on SGM family between young adult sexual-minority men and
life. As a result, this review primarily focuses their mothers improved after initial disclosure,
on SGM families in the U.S. context. but relationships with fathers did not improve
(Pachankis, Sullivan, & Moore, 2018). Thus,
disclosure of sexual identity to parents may
SGM Family-of-Origin Relationships be a key dimension of family strain for SGM
A robust literature shows that family-of-origin youth. Although the primary focus of research
relationships are important to minor children due on SGM youth family relationships is the
to children’s financial and social dependence. parent–child tie, some research suggests that
Far less is known about SGM family-of-origin siblings and extended family members can be
ties in mid- and later-life. I review research on key sources of support during times of parental
(a) adolescent SGM family-of-origin ties and (b) rejection (Grafsky, Hickey, Nguyen, & Wall,
adult SGM family-of-origin ties, with subsec- 2018; Hilton & Szymanski, 2011; Rothblum,
tions on health and well-being. 2010).
Although the vast majority of research
focuses on the family-of-origin ties of gay,
Adolescent SGM Family-of-Origin Ties lesbian, and bisexual identified adolescents, a
The following two primary questions guide series of small-scale qualitative studies show
research on adolescent SGM family-of-origin that transgender youth are at especially high risk
relationships: What is the nature of SGM of family rejection due to transgender stigma-
adolescent family-of-origin ties? How do tization. For example, McGuire, Kuvalanka,
family-of-origin ties influence adolescent SGM Catalpa, and Toomey (2016) find that half of the
health? transgender youth in their sample report a sig-
nificant physical (e.g., moving out) or emotional
The Nature of adolescent SGM Family-of-Origin break with family after disclosing their trans-
Ties. There is consistent evidence that relative gender status, with most youth experiencing fear
to their heterosexual and cisgender peers, of relationship dissolution in the future. This
SGM youth experience less support and more heightened rejection may be because of strong
strain from their families of origin (Needham parental efforts to urge children—especially
& Austin, 2010). Sexual-minority youth are persons assigned male sex at birth—to be
less likely to report closeness, attachment, and gender conforming and heterosexual (Rahilly,
support; are less likely to disclose personal 2015; Solebello & Elliott, 2011). Moreover,
problems; and are more likely to report conflict scholars articulate the “loss” felt when a child
with parents than their cis or heterosexual coun- does not conform to parents’ gendered expec-
terparts (Feinstein et al., 2018; Montano et al., tations, which in turn shapes the treatment of
2018; Montano, McCauley, Miller, Chisolm, the transgender child (McGuire, Catalpa, Lacey,
& Marshal, 2017). Although some SGM youth & Kuvalanka, 2016; Meadow, 2018; Norwood,
may face less sexuality- and gender-related 2013; Rahilly, 2015). These studies represent a
rejection than in previous decades (Russell & new line of research on adolescent–parent ties,
Fish, 2016), some survey research shows that laying the groundwork for further understanding
family support has actually decreased over gender-minority intergenerational ties and their
time (Watson, Rose, Doull, Adjei, & Saewyc, implications for SGM people.
2019). Parent–child conflict appears to be
particularly impactful after a child discloses SGM Adolescent Family-of-Origin Ties
their sexual identity (i.e., “coming out”; Alonzo and Health and Well-Being. A second body
& Buttitta, 2019; Jhang, 2018; Scherrer, Kazyak, of work moves beyond the nature of SGM
& Schmitz, 2015). For example, when lesbian, adolescent family-of-origin ties to explore the
gay, bisexual, and queer people report low implications of these ties on well-being. Despite
increased social acceptance, SGM youth still life situation assessment. The effect of family
experience significant health disparities relative members on health may be strongest during or
to their cisgender heterosexual peers (Russell & directly after the disclosure process (D’Amico,
Fish, 2019), and numerous studies demonstrate Julien, Tremblay, & Chartrand, 2015); a survey
that families are key in explaining SGM ado- of 461 lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adoles-
lescents’ worse health. High levels of parental cents show family acceptance after disclosure is
strain and low levels of parental support are related to better well-being and a reduction in
linked to a range of negative health outcomes mental distress (Shilo & Savaya, 2011), whereas
for SGM youth (Bouris et al., 2010; D’Amico & adolescent SGM who report family rejection
Julien, 2012; Fredriksen-Goldsen, Shiu, Bryan, during the disclosure process are 8.4 times more
Goldsen, & Kim, 2016; McConnell, Birkett, & likely to attempt suicide (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz,
Mustanski, 2016; Russell & Fish, 2016; Ryan, & Sanchez, 2009). Similarly, Padilla, Crisp,
Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010; Wat- and Rew (2010) find that mothers’ acceptance
son, Grossman, & Russell, 2019). For example, after disclosure is associated with less substance
in a large study using three waves of Add Health, use.
Needham and Austin (2010) show that lesbian Gender-minority youth may be among the
and bisexual young cisgender women report most at risk for the deleterious health effects
lower levels of parental support and higher of low-quality family-of-origin relationships
odds of suicidal ideation and drug use relative (Klein & Golub, 2016), and these youth in turn
to heterosexual women; bisexual women also may experience clear health benefits from sup-
report higher odds of depressive symptoms portive family ties (Kuvalanka, Weiner, Munroe,
and heavy drinking than heterosexual women. Goldberg, & Gardner, 2017). Family support
In turn, gay, young, adult men report lower has positive impacts on transgender youth
levels of parental support relative to bisexual mental health outcomes and risk-taking behav-
and heterosexual men, and gay men experi- iors, such as decreased suicidality or substance
ence higher suicidal ideation than heterosexual use (Grossman, D’Augelli, & Frank, 2011;
men. Parental support either fully or partially Olson, Durwood, DeMeules, & McLaugh-
mediated these health disadvantages. Pearson lin, 2016; Simons, Schrager, Clark, Belzer, &
and Wilkinson (2013) use Add Health data Olson, 2013). In two studies of parental support
to show that lower levels of parental involve- of transgender youth, Budge, Adelson, and
ment, closeness, and support among same-sex Howard (2013) report that parental support
attracted youth was associated with higher and acceptance is associated with lower levels
levels of depression, substance use, and running of anxiety and depressive symptoms, whereas
away from home. Ueno (2010) finds that young Catalpa and McGuire (2018) show transgen-
adults who have same-sex sexual contact report der youth who experience family boundary
higher levels of depressive symptoms and that ambiguity—a lack of clarity regarding whether
this elevated depression is explained by sex- trans youth remained in the family—causes
ual minorities’ lower levels of family support. significant psychological and financial distress.
In one of the few studies looking at bisexual This body of work requires additional empirical
health, a survey of 383 cisgender bisexual youth evidence at the population level, alongside
reveal parental support buffers the association in-depth qualitative studies, to fully determine
between stress during disclosure and depressive the relationship among gender-minority youth
symptoms for bisexual male youth (Pollitt, experiences, family, and health.
Muraco, Grossman, & Russell, 2017), and a
study of 461 sexual-minority youth in Israel
Adult SGM Family-of-Origin Ties
shows the negative effects of bisexuality are
reduced when family members provide social The following two questions guide research on
support and acceptance (Shilo & Savaya, 2012). adult SGM family-of-origin relationships: What
In a study focused on youth of color, Snapp, is the nature of SGM adult family-of-origin ties?
Watson, Russell, Diaz, and Ryan (2015) report How do family-of-origin ties influence adult
that among 245 Latino and non-Latino lesbian, SGM health?
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth,
family support is a strong predictor of positive The Nature of Adult SGM Family-of-Origin
well-being outcomes, including self-esteem and Relationships. Relatively few studies explore
SGM family-of-origin relationships in demonstrate that strained relationships in youth

adulthood. Overall, this body of work shows that continue into adulthood (Norwood, 2013). In
family-of-origin relationships, particularly the a qualitative study of the coming out narra-
parent–child tie, are central to the experiences of tives of 20 transgender adults in Minnesota,
SGM adults (Reczek, 2014). Family members Brumbaugh-Johnson and Hull (2018) found that
appear to support SGM adults via integration transgender people must consistently negotiate
into family relationships, inclusion through disclosing and enacting their gender identity,
requested language markers (e.g., spouse, pro- even after “coming out” to family in adulthood.
nouns), social support in times of need, and Platt and Bolland (2017) used 38 qualitative
public affirmations; family members demon- interviews with transgender adults to demon-
strate rejection via detached relationships, daily strate the importance of family-of-origin support
putdowns, and marked traumatic events (e.g., for transgender intimate partner relationships.
disownment; Reczek, 2016a,2016b; Reczek, No studies known to the author examine other
Liu, & Spiker, 2014). Participation in legal gender minorities—such as gender nonbinary
marriage appears to increase family-of-origin or nonconforming individuals—and their rela-
support and in some cases also increases tionships with their families in adulthood,
conflict (Ocobock, 2013; Riggle, Drabble, yet it is likely that the families of origin
Veldhuis, Wootton, & Hughes, 2018). More- remain important to gender-minority adults
over, intergenerational ambivalence—or the and thus future research should explore these
simultaneous presence of both positive and neg- relationships.
ative feelings and actions between parents and
children—also appears to be a key dimension of SGM Adult Family-of-Origin Ties and Health
SGM family-of-origin relationship dynamics in and Well-Being. Because of the strong link
adulthood (Fruhauf & Mahoney, 2010; Reczek, between family ties and health across the
2016b). For example, gay and lesbian adults life course, family-of-origin relationships
appear to provide key instrumental support likely shape well-being in adulthood, although
to aging parents, even when relationships are few studies examine this possibility. As in
conflictual (Reczek & Umberson, 2016). adolescence, acceptance from parents in adult-
A small number of surveys have been con- hood is associated with a lower psychological
ducted to assess the relationships of SGM impact of internalized homophobia (Feinstein,
adults and their families of origin, with an Wadsworth, Davila, & Goldfried, 2014). For
explicit focus on racial-ethnic minority groups. example, a study of 98 LGB young adults
For example, Pastrana (2015) uses nationwide (ages 18–21) shows more support from network
samples of LGBT Latina and Latino adults members was associated with lower levels of
(N = 1,159) and African American LGBT emotional distress (Doty, Willoughby, Lindahl,
adults (N = 2,166) to show that family support & Malik, 2010), and LGB adults who thought
is highly correlated with outness in adulthood their parents did not provide emotional and
among both African Americans and Latinas and social support had higher odds of depression
Latinos. Moreover, Black and Latina and Latino and substance use in adulthood (Rothman, Sulli-
sexual-minority adults who have high levels of van, Keyes, & Boehmer, 2012). Later in the life
disclosure of gender and sexual identity to fam- course, bisexual older adults report worse health
ily experience more family support (Swendener than gay and lesbian older adults in part because
& Woodell, 2017). In a study of what Acosta they have less social support from the family of
calls sexually nonconforming (i.e., nonhetero- origin (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2016), and the
sexual), cisgender adult Latinas show that fam- disclosure of gay grandfathers to their grand-
ilies accept Latina’s nonheterosexual identity if children is associated with grandfathers’ better
they embodied hegemonic femininity (Acosta, mental health (Tornello & Patterson, 2016).
2013). Although important, these studies do Virtually no studies on gender-minority adults
not compare across racial groups and are not examine the link between family support and
population based; national studies are needed to health, although family support is likely critical
provide estimates of how family-of-origin rela- for preventing negative life and well-being
tionships in adulthood vary across race-ethnicity. outcomes such as homelessness, HIV, drug
The relatively few studies that explore and alcohol use, and suicide attempts among
gender-minority adult’s family relationships gender-minority adults.
SGM Intimate Relationships stigmatization and violence inflicted on trans-

Although most research early in the life course people in the United States today. Although still
focuses on SGM adolescents’ parent–child nascent, this growing body of work suggests
ties, research on mid-life centers largely on that differing social forces and social norms
SGM intimate relationships. This body of work may shape the way SGM individuals view and
primarily focuses on comparisons between enter into romantic relationships.
same-sex and different-sex couples or between Beyond dating and initial sorting, how
gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples on a couples form committed unions via both cohab-
range of outcomes, including (a) dating and itation and marriage is a key area of inquiry.
relationship formation, (b) relationship qual- Research in the former half of the decade
ity, (c) the division of labor, (d) health and focused on how SGM partners make com-
well-being, and (e) dissolution. In this section, mitment without marriage, and in the latter
the terms same-sex and different-sex are used half of the decade on articulating couples’
when studies identify couples based on the sex decision-making processes regarding marriage
composition of household rosters with unknown (Shulman, Gotta, & Green, 2012). Prior to
sexual identities; the terms gay, lesbian, and 2015, several states legalized marriage between
heterosexual are used when studies classify individuals of the same sex, allowing for state-
individuals based on their sexual identity status. and local-level insights into the meaning of mar-
Most studies reviewed do not report whether riage equality. Kimport (2013) conducted 42
sample individuals are cisgender or transgender, interviews of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer
and in these cases no differentiation is made. people married during 2004 in San Francisco—a
brief period of local legalization prior to state
and federal legalization. In this study, respon-
Dating and Relationship Formation dents married for political statements, access
Research suggests that there are both similar and to legal rights, and love, yet many SGM
unique mate-selection processes when compar- individuals—particularly women—point to the
ing SGM populations to cisgender heterosexual problematic nature of marriage as a heterosexist,
populations. Male and female same-sex cou- patriarchal, and homonormative institution that
ples are more age heterogeneous than their reinforces hegemonic notions of gender and sex-
different-sex counterparts, and male same-sex uality. Similarly, a study in Massachusetts after
couples are more educationally heterogeneous the state legalized marriage reports that some
than their different-sex counterparts (Verbakel same-sex married couples express ambivalent
& Kalmijn, 2014). There are also cultural norms feelings about marriage. In some instances, one
that differ in SGM dating communities that partner may push marriage on a reluctant partner
shape sorting practices. For example, in a study who rejects marriage due to feminist principles
using Add Health, Meier, Hull, and Ortyl (2009) (Bosley-Smith & Reczek, 2018). The meaning
show that sexual-minority adults adhere to and consequences of union formation, including
normative heterosexual romantic relationship marriage, is a key source of future inquiry, as
values (e.g., romantic love ideology), however, scholars only recently have data with congruent
sexual-minority young adults are less likely federal and state-level marriage equality.
to value faithfulness and lifelong commitment
than heterosexual young adults (also see Potârcă,
Relationship Quality
Mills, & Neberich, 2015). Furthermore, a study
of 40 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and Relationship quality is a long-standing area of
queer San Francisco Bay residents demonstrates family research. Research consistently shows
the active rejection of heterosexual norms of that same-sex and different-sex couples report
dating because they are considered boring, relatively similar relationship quality (e.g.,
sexist, monogamous, and confining, with SGM Joyner, Manning, & Prince, 2019; Perales &
partners working to formulate nongendered, Baxter, 2018). In the past decade, scholarship
equality-focused dating relationships (Lamont, moved beyond the basic question of com-
2017). In one of the only studies on transgender paring relationship quality across same- and
dating experiences, Belawski and Sojka (2014) different-sex couples to the study of the unique
detail the additional work transgender individu- determinants of relationship quality in same-sex
als must do to find a romantic partner given the couples—focusing on the consequences of
stigmatization from family, friends, and insti- reported a decline in sexual activity and desire
tutions. For example, in two studies prior to over time, but lesbian women uniquely sug-
federal marriage equality in the United States, gested weight gain, caregiving for a parent, and
van Eeden-Moorefield and Benson (2014) used menopause as reasons for this decline. Lesbian
internet-based data with 176 partnered gay women in this study also reported more work
men to show that internalized homophobia in promoting their sex lives than heterosexual
plays a role in relationship stability, whereas women. In a study of 161 gay male couples
a qualitative study of 32 legally married (at (N = 322), Parsons, Starks, Gamarel, and Grov
the state level, not the federal level) White gay (2012) compared monogamous, monogamish,
men in Iowa demonstrated how many LGB open, and discrepant sexual statuses and found
adults experience increases in family strain due no differences in sexual satisfaction, communi-
to increases in LGB visibility postmarriage cation, or frequency; monogamous men reported
(Ocobock, 2013). Moreover, disapproval from more sexual jealousy. In a study comparing the
parents increases romantic relationship strain, sex frequency of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual
but can also promote relationship resilience adoptive parents and relationship quality, Farr,
(Frost, 2011; Graham & Barnow, 2013; Maca- Forsell, and Patterson (2010) found differences
pagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015; in sex frequency by sexual orientation with gay
Reczek, 2016a). Taken together, this body men having the most sex and lesbian women the
of work suggests that couple functioning is least, but they find no differences in sexual rela-
strongly influenced by external factors, most tionship satisfaction. These studies suggest that
notably homophobia and stigma. sexual intimacy is an important aspect of rela-
Several studies examined relationship quality tionship quality, and future research should con-
among SGM racial-ethnic minorities. A qualita- tinue to examine intimacy as a central aspect of
tive study on gay and lesbian interracial couples SGM relationship dynamics.
demonstrated the unique challenges of both Beyond the sexual-minority context, a grow-
hypervisibility (i.e., partners experience both ing but small area of research shows that intimate
homophobia and racism due to their doubly relationship quality is a key source of identity
marginalized statuses) and hyperinvisibility affirmation for transgender people and their
(i.e., partners are not recognized as a couple partners (Pfeffer, 2016), with quality intimate
due to both racist and homophobic assump- relationships being a primary goal of transgen-
tions; Steinbugler, 2012). In addition, a study der individuals (Sanger, 2010). Research shows
of 480 respondents in same-sex and interracial couples with a transpartner experience unique
relationships showed that both racist and homo- stressors that influence relationship quality.
phobic relationship stigma from friends (e.g., For example, Garmarel, Reisner, Laurenceau,
friends make comments about your partner that Nemoto, and Operario (2014) analyzed data
offend you) was associated with lower levels of from 191 couples of transwomen and their
relationship commitment (Rosenthal & Starks, cisgender male partners and find that partners
2015). In a qualitative study with 22 Black financial strain and trans-related discrimination
lesbians, Glass and Few-Demo (2013) showed were linked to increased depression for both
that partners in Black lesbian couples received partners. For transwomen, their own—as well
family support individually, but not together as a as their partner’s—higher levels of relationship
couple, negating the existence of lesbian sexual stigma scores (e.g., how comfortable do you
identity. Few studies examine how supportive feel holding hands with your partner in public;
relationships with family bolster marital quality, how comfortable do you feel going out with
although Reczek (2016a) showed that rejection your partner in public; introducing your partner
from parents can bring couples closer together to friends; hiding your relationship from others)
against unsupportive parents. are related to lower levels of relationship quality;
Although recent family scholarship points for cismen partners, only the transwomen’s rela-
to the importance of sex and sexual intimacy tionship stigma scores are associated with lower
as a dimension of intimate relationship qual- levels of relationship quality. Moreover, gender
ity, few studies examine sexual quality in SGM transitioning within a relationship places sig-
couples. Paine, Umberson, and Reczek (2019) nificant stress on relationship quality and both
used in-depth interview data with lesbian and partners’ well-being (DeFilippis, Yarbrough, &
heterosexual women and showed that women Jones, 2018). For example, Pfeffer (2016) used
in-depth interviews with ciswomen partners of of Black biological mothers and stepmothers
transmen to show the emotional work cispartners in same-gender relationships, Moore (2011)
do to support their transpartners pretransition, found that it was the biological relationship to
during transition, and posttransition, whereas a child that shapes household work, wherein
Platt and Bolland (2017) showed the negotia- biological mothers are more likely than step-
tions 21 cisgender partners made in response to mothers to assert dominance over child care
their transpartners identity, including changes and household tasks to enact power in lieu of
in their own sexual orientation labels, concerns financial equity. Similarly, among cisgender
with safety and marginalization, and devel- gay fathers, biological fathers who have a child
opment of a new understanding of the gender from a previous heterosexual relationship are
spectrum. Taken together, this body of work more likely to specialize in child care than their
suggested key predictors of relationship quality partners (Tornello et al., 2015). This body of
for gender-minority adults and their partners research suggests that relationship dynamics
that should be further explored in future work. unique to SGM populations may shape the
division of labor in ways that have not been
fully articulated in past research.
Division of Household Labor A few studies examine the division of labor in
The division of household labor among cis- transgender families, providing potential clues
gender heterosexual couples has been a major to the negotiation of power around housework.
area of scholarly work for decades. Research on Pfeffer (2010) and Ward (2010) used qualita-
SGM couples, most notably same-sex couples, tive data to show that ciswomen partnered to
calls to question theory on heterosexual couples’ transmen do more housework than their trans-
division of labor that rely on gendered assump- gender partners to assert gender order and affirm
tions of men and women as opposites (Doan their partners’ masculine identities, and Kelly
& Quadlin, 2019; Geist & Ruppanner, 2018). and Hauck (2015) interviewed 30 gender and
Overall, research confirms that sexual-minority sexual minorities and showed that personal pref-
couples—especially and perhaps exclusively erence and labor force participation, not neces-
White gay and lesbian couples—are more likely sarily gender, shaped the division of labor. Taken
to have an egalitarian household division of together, these findings suggest that the relation-
labor than heterosexual couples; this is true ship between gender and the division of labor in
when comparing groups with and without SGM relationship is more complex than the pre-
children (for a review, see Goldberg, 2013; dominant “egalitarian” framework would sug-
Goldberg, Smith, & Perry-Jenkins, 2012; Gotta gest, and future work should continue to theorize
et al., 2011; Tornello, Sonnenberg, & Patterson, the unique division of labor dynamics among
2015). Gendered housework theory suggests gender and sexual minorities.
that partners in sexual-minority couples are less
reliant on traditional gendered norms, are more
Health and Well-Being
likely to have similar housework preferences,
and are more likely to be dually employed How marriage shapes health among cisgender
outside the home (Doan & Quadlin, 2019). heterosexual populations has been a major area
Yet there are unique predictors of the divi- of study during the past half century. Due to
sion of labor within sexual-minority couples, the legalization of same-sex marriage during the
including work hours outside the home, time past decade, scholars can now ask the following:
availability, and income inequality (Tornello Is marriage protective for individuals in SGM
et al., 2015; Widiss, 2016). It may be that individuals in ways similar to cisgender het-
even in sexual-minority couples, child care erosexual couples? The answer to this question
and feminine-typed tasks such as laundry are appears to be a resounding yes: Union status is
clustered together unequally (Goldberg, 2013; associated with health among sexual minorities
Goldberg et al., 2012). For example, in a study to a similar degree as found among cisgender
of 116 women and 128 men in sexual-minority heterosexual populations. Notably, this finding
relationships, Civettini (2015) showed that the is based on data using national household ros-
division of labor is not shaped by gender per ters comparing same-sex and different-sex cou-
se, but by levels of traditionally feminine and ples, and therefore sexual and gender identity is
masculine traits. In turn, in a qualitative study often unknown; this limits the ability to directly
compare SGM across union status as well as pro- (Carpenter, Eppink, Gonzales, & McKay, 2018).
hibits comparison of marital status groups to sin- These findings bolster the overall finding that
gle SGM populations. a marital advantage is found among same-sex
Prior to marriage legalization at the state and couples.
federal levels, several nationally representative Beyond these population trends, a novel
studies demonstrated that the health of individu- component of research on relationships and
als in same-sex cohabitation look similar to those health is an attempt to explain these health
in different-sex cohabitation—with both groups trends and differences, typically with qualitative
being worse off than those in different-sex data. For example, qualitative and daily diary
marriage (Denney, Gorman, & Barrera, 2013; research suggests that gay and lesbian couples
Gonzales & Henning-Smith, 2015; Liu, Reczek, appear to be more concordant in health behav-
& Brown, 2013; Reczek, Liu, & Spiker, 2017). ior (Holway, Umberson, & Donnelly, 2018;
For example, Denney et al. (2013) and Liu Reczek, 2012; Reczek & Umberson, 2012), are
et al. (2013) used the National Health Interview more likely to care for each other when sick
Survey to show that same-sex and different-sex (Thomeer, Reczek, & Umberson, 2015; Umber-
cohabitors report similar self-rated health to son, Thomeer, Reczek, & Donnelly, 2016), and
one another and worse self-rated health relative are differentially impacted by marital strain
to the different-sex married. Riggle, Rostosky, (Garcia & Umberson, 2019) than heterosexual
and Horne (2010) use an online sample of couples. Moreover, it appears that gay and les-
2,677 LGB-identified individuals and found bian couples face higher levels of discrimination
that those in a committed relationship reported and stress than heterosexual couples (Cao et al.,
less psychological distress and better overall 2017; Frost et al., 2017), and marriage bans are
well-being than those LGB-identified individ- shown to worsen health among SGM people
uals not in committed relationships; those in (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012, 2014; Kail, Acosta,
legal relationships, relative to those in nonlegal & Wright, 2015). Gay and lesbian older adults
committed cohabiting or dating relationships, who are legally married report better quality of
experienced less internalized homophobia and life and more social and economic resources
less depressive symptoms. Similarly, Baumle than those who are partnered but not married
(2014) found that elders in same-sex cohabiting (Goldsen et al., 2017). Moreover, as is the case
partnerships, especially women, were disadvan- in heterosexual couples, relationship quality
taged relative to those in different-sex married may influence mental and physical health in
and cohabiting unions, yet in a study of adults significant ways in sexual-minority couples,
aged older than 50, having a same-sex partner, with a study of 571 sexual minorities finding
regardless of marital status, was associated with a negative association between relationship
better self-report health and fewer depressive quality and depression (Whitton & Kuryluk,
symptoms relative to single LGB older adults 2014). Future work should continue to explore
(Williams & Fredriksen-Golsen, 2014). the basic patterns of health across couple types
The legalization of marriage between indi- among gender and sexual minorities as well
viduals of the same-sex meant nationally as the underlying mechanisms that may shape
representative household rosters could be used these trends.
to examine the health associations of marriage Although most research focuses on same-sex
for the SGM population. This body of research couples, research has begun to examine health
shows that the same-sex married have simi- in gender-minority intimate relationships. Liu
lar self-rated health relative to the different-sex and Wilkinson (2017) used the National Trans
married and have better self-rated health than the Discrimination Survey and found that married
different-sex or same-sex cohabiting (Reczek transgender respondents tended to report lower
et al., 2014). Marriage, relative to being in a levels of perceived discrimination than their
domestic partnership, is associated with lower cohabiting and previously married transcounter-
levels of psychological distress and better men- parts. In addition, an international study of trans-
tal health for individuals in both same-sex and men showed that partnered transmen reported
different-sex relationships (LeBlanc, Frost, & fewer depressive symptoms than their single
Bowen, 2018; Wight, LeBlanc, & Badgett, 2013) counterparts (Meier, Sharp, Michonski, Bab-
and that access to marriage increased healthcare cock, & Fitzgerald, 2013). This suggests that the
access and care among sexual-minority men long-standing institutional benefits of marriage
may extend to all those who are legally able equality on dissolution rates. Overall, this body
to participate; however, more research needs of work demonstrates that marriage is impor-
to be conducted to fully understand the scope tant to same-sex couple stability; the ability
of this potential marital advantage. In particu- to legally marry, coupled with general social
lar, greater complexity needs to be taken into tolerance toward marriage, is associated with
account when examining the impact of marriage a higher desire for long-term relationships
on health among SGM populations, with future and stronger monogamy beliefs among SGM
research moving away from simple comparisons populations (Potârcă et al., 2015). Manning
of same-sex couples versus different-sex couples et al. (2016) showed that living in a state with
to include other individuals and SGM groups. a same-sex marriage ban reduced relation-
ship stability in both same-sex cohabiting and
different-sex cohabiting couples, whereas Dil-
Dissolution lender (2014) and Trandafir (2015) showed
As research in the past decade expands our that the legalization of marriage between
understanding of the formation and conse- individuals of the same-sex did not reduce
quences of SGM intimate relationships, the the rate of different-sex marriage in United
corollary field of relationship dissolution and States. Notably, gender-minority relationship
instability has also grown. The primary research dissolution has not been systematically exam-
questions in this area are the following: Do ined empirically; one exception is a study by
SGM adults have higher rates of dissolution Meier et al. (2013), who reported that among
than their heterosexual cisgender counterparts? transmen who were partnered prior to transi-
How do these rates differ by gender? The results tion, half of the relationships were dissolved
have been inconsistent in part due to vary- during or after transition. Additional longi-
ing comparison groups. In studies done prior tudinal, population-level data are needed to
to federal U.S. marriage equality, Rosenfeld fully parse both the rates and predictors of
(2014) showed that same-sex and different-sex SGM couples’—especially gender-minority
couples had similar rates of breaking up once couples’—relationship dissolution.
marital status is accounted for, whereas Man-
ning, Brown, and Stykes (2016) suggested that
Sexual- and Gender-Minority
same-sex cohabitors experienced similar levels
Parenthood
of stability relative to different-sex cohabitors;
both couple types experienced more instability According to 2010 U.S. census data and the
than different-sex marrieds. A study of two 2013 American Community Survey (Payne
British cohorts showed that same-sex cohabitors & Manning, 2015), about 225,000 same-sex
had higher rates of dissolution than people in households have children aged younger than
different-sex cohabiting and different-sex mar- 18; notably, this number only includes minor
ried unions and that male couples had a slightly children in same-sex households and does not
higher rate of dissolution than the female cou- include children raised by SGM parents who do
ples (Lau, 2012). A Norwegian study found that not currently reside in a same-sex household,
same-sex couples who formed unions between SGM single parents, or SGM nonresidential
1993 and 2010 had a higher risk of divorce when partner households (Gates, 2014). Other data
compared with different-sex couples, but female sources estimate 2 million to 3.7 million children
couples were more prone to divorce than male are being raised by SGM adults (Gates, 2015;
couples (Aarskaug Wiik, Seierstad, & Noack, Gates & Newport, 2015). Same-sex parents are
2014). Joyner, Manning, and Bogle (2017) used more likely to be racial-ethnic minorities than
Add Health data to show that male same-sex same-sex couple households without children;
couples had higher dissolution rates than female nearly 40% of same-sex couples who have
same-sex couples and different-sex couples, yet children aged younger than 18 in the home con-
in a study of 190 gay, lesbian, and heterosexual sist of at least one racial-ethnic minority adult.
couples who were adoptive parents, Goldberg Black individuals in same-sex couples are 2.4
and Garcia (2015) found that there were no dif- times more likely than White individuals to be
ferences in dissolution odds across couple types. raising children (40% vs. 16%), whereas 28% of
Research has begun to test the effects of Latino individuals in same-sex couples are rais-
marriage laws both before and after marriage ing children—1.7 times more likely than Whites
(Gates, 2015). Two primary subareas represent including adoption, reproductive technology,
SGM parenting research during the past decade: and surrogacy.
(a) parenthood contexts and experiences and (b) Adoption is a second key parenthood pathway
SGM-parent family effects on children. for SGM adults (Baumle & Compton, 2015),
with an estimated one in five same-sex couples
raising adopted children, relative to about 3% of
Parenthood Contexts and Experiences
different-sex couples raising adopted children;
Two subthemes dominate the theme of parent- 3% of same-sex couples have foster children,
hood contexts and experiences: (a) pathways to relative to 0.4% of heterosexual parents (Gold-
parenthood and (b) parenting dynamics. berg & Conron, 2018). However, research
suggests some religiously affiliated adoption
Pathways to Parenthood. There is immense agencies restrict the availability of adoption due
diversity in the pathways to SGM parenthood to the stigmatization of SGM as unfit parents
(Kazyak, Park, McQuillan, & Greil, 2016) (Farr, Ravvina, & Grotevant, 2018).
in part due to differing levels of social stigma, As a third pathway, SGM adults choose
access to adoption, the cost of reproductive tech- parenthood via reproductive technology, which
nologies, cultural norms in SGM communities, includes a wide range of technologies with
and legal constraints across the SGM population vastly different costs including egg harvesting,
(Baumle & Compton, 2015). In research using insemination in home and hospital settings,
the National Survey of Family Growth, Riskind and in vitro fertilization. Those reproductive
and Patterson (2010) showed that although gay, acts that take place in the medical domain are
lesbian, and heterosexual individuals aged 15 rarely covered under insurance for SGM cou-
to 44 years value parenthood equally, gay men ples because infertility cannot be proven as it
and lesbian women are less likely to want to supposedly can be with heterosexual couples,
have children than heterosexuals; gay men who thus this pathway is often highly cost prohibitive
want to have children are less likely than het- (Mamo & Alston-Stepnitz, 2015).
erosexual men to believe they will fulfill those Surrogacy is a fourth pathway to parenthood
desires. In contrast, bisexual parenting desires used primarily among gay fathers (Pachankis
and intentions are consistent with heterosex- et al., 2018), but this option is again highly costly
ual populations and are higher than their gay and thus utilized primarily by higher socioe-
and lesbian peers (Riskind & Patterson, 2010; conomic status (SES) people (Carroll, 2018).
Riskind & Tornello, 2017). Because these latter pathways to parenthood are
Sexual-minority individuals pursue a vari- highly stratified by class status, not all SGM
ety of planned pathways for family formation adults have equal access to parenthood. More-
including children from a previous heterosexual over, the pathways for parents to become legal
relationship, adoption, the use of reproductive guardians when using reproductive technologies
technologies, surrogacy, and other inten- and surrogacy vary widely by state and country,
tional family-formation strategies (Goldberg & which may be restrictive for parents in those con-
Gartrell, 2014; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, texts that are not institutionally supportive.
2013). First, the majority of SGM adults today
become parents in the context of a heterosex- What Are the Dynamics of SGM Parenting?.
ual relationship (Goldberg, Gartrell, & Gates, Questions regarding the parenting dynam-
2014). Parenthood via a previous heterosexual ics of SGM adults have become a key site
relationship may be an especially prominent of inquiry in the past decade, with research
pathway for older cohorts who faced higher comparing same-sex to different-sex couples
levels of social stigma and were more likely to (or gay vs. lesbian vs. heterosexual-identified
be closeted during childbearing years, although couples) on a variety of parenting factors. For
SGM adults today may have children through a example, Augustine, Aveldanes, and Pfeffer
different-sex relationship due to the fluidity of (2017) find that gay fathers spend less time in
sexual identity and behavior. With earlier ages self-care activities than heterosexual fathers,
of self-acceptance and disclosure and relatively whereas lesbian mothers spend more time in
less social stigma and discrimination in the past self-care activities than heterosexual mothers.
decade, there have been substantial increases in Perhaps most notably, research in the past
what are called “planned” SGM childrearing, decade highlights the unique role of social
stigma and social support in SGM parenting normalize their own sexual-minority status was
dynamics. Supportive social and legal com- found in a study of eight lesbian and bisexual
munities significantly improve experiences of mothers with transkids between 6 and 11 years
social stigma, depression, and anxiety (Bos, old. In this study, Kuvalanka et al. (2017)
Knox, van Rijn-van Gelderen, & Gartrell, 2016; showed that sexual-minority mothers were
Goldberg & Smith, 2011; Oswald, Routon, often blamed for their child’s transgender status
McGuire, & Holman, 2018). Although one and as a result sometimes attempted to curb
study of 92 adoptive families reports that par- gender-nonconforming behavior. Still, very few
ents in same-sex and different-sex couples have studies directly examine transgender parenting
similar amounts of social support from network dynamics. One study showed that transgender
members (Sumontha, Farr, & Patterson, 2016), parents work to renegotiate their relationships
most other research shows that sexual-minority with their own children, and former spouses
parents experience high social stigma and less play an important role in this negotiation; former
social support than their heterosexual counter- spouses may restrict access to transgender par-
parts. For example, Black lesbian mothers face ents or may facilitate the transparent and child
significant stigma, which contributes to renego- in adjusting to gender transition (Pyne, Bauer,
tiating notions of Black respectability as sexual & Bradley, 2015). In addition, using interviews
minorities in their community (Moore, 2011). A with 13 kids and 15 parents (eight cisgender
qualitative study of 41 mostly White gay fathers parents and seven transgender parents) from
in Texas and California showed that gay fathers nine families, Dierckx, Mortelmans, Motmans,
experienced significant discrimination within and T’Sjoen (2017) found that there were clear
both their heterosexual and gay communities adaptive approaches to a parent transitioning,
(Carroll, 2018); in turn, these gay fathers resisted including family continuity, communication,
and reframed their fatherhood experiences as and acceptance. Although these studies demon-
positive. Similarly, Vinjamuri (2015) inter- strated the complexity of gender-minority
viewed 20 gay-father families and showed that parent families, they were limited in their abil-
public parenting was consistently scrutinized in ity to fully explore the multifaceted nature of
ways that created stress and feelings of stigma- gender-minority parenthood. Future research is
tization, whereas Tornello, Farr, and Patterson needed to provide a more holistic account of the
(2011) examined 230 gay adoptive fathers with pathways to and processes of gender-minority
an internet survey and found that fathers with parenthood.
less social support, older children, and children
who were adopted at older ages reported more
parenting stress. In a 12-year longitudinal study SGM-Parent Family Effects on Children
of gays and lesbians and their heterosexual
siblings on the long-term effects of stigma and Child well-being in SGM-parent families cap-
stress, Richards, Rothblum, Beauchaine, and tured the attention of the scholarly, legal, and
Balsam (2017) showed that children of LGB policy communities during the past decade,
parents reported less frequent contact with their with research attempting to find consensus
adult children than heterosexual parents. Taken regarding whether children raised in SGM
together, this research suggests that gay and families are “worse off” than those raised in
lesbian (or same-sex) families may be disad- cisgender heterosexual families. Studies using
vantaged relative to social support, increasing new nationally representative population-based
parenting stress. survey data put this question to rest, consistently
Beyond the gay and lesbian context, very showing that children in same-sex households
few studies examine parenting experiences and experience similar health, behavioral, and edu-
dynamics in other gender- and sexual-minority cational outcomes when compared with children
families, such as bisexual or transgender families in different-sex households (Calzo et al., 2019;
(Ross & Dobinson, 2013). In a small qualitative Farr, 2017; Patterson, 2017; Reczek, Spiker, Liu,
study of bisexual mothers, Tasker and Delvoye & Crosnoe, 2016, 2017; for reviews, see adams
(2015) suggested that although identities of & Light, 2015; Manning, Fettro, & Lamidi,
both bisexual and mother are salient, at times 2014). When differences are found across
child well-being is prioritized over bisexual groups they are accounted for by variables other
identity markers. Similar efforts of parents to than sexual-minority status, including lower
SES and family transitions (Potter, 2012; Potter social climate data to analyze the psychological
& Potter, 2017). well-being of children raised by same-sex par-
Notably, most studies in this area deploy ents and found better psychological outcomes
household rosters and thus are only able to cap- for children in areas with antidiscrimination
ture children in households with parents of the laws, suggesting it was institutional factors—not
same-sex, not households with a parent who something inherent in the same-sex family—that
identifies as a gender or sexual minority. In would cause any negative child outcomes. In
one of the first large-scale surveys using such addition, in a study of 84 adult children with
data, Rosenfeld (2010) examines U.S. Census gay fathers, Thomeer, Donnelly, Reczek, and
data to show that children of same-sex couples Umberson (2017) found that children feel closer
are as likely to make typical progress through to fathers when their fathers disclosed their gay
school as children of other family structures; identity earlier in the life course; those who
any advantage for heterosexual married cou- report closer relationships with their fathers
ples’ relative to other groups was explained by report greater well-being, suggesting that it
SES. Similarly, Reczek, Spiker et al. (2016, is the context and content of the parent–child
2017) analyzed the National Health Interview tie that shapes child well-being outcomes, not
Survey data to show that children raised in simply being from a gay family. Calzo et al.
same-sex married families had overall similar (2019) further showed that children of bisexual
health and behavioral outcomes relative to chil- parents had higher rates of externalizing behav-
dren in different-sex married families, and chil- iors (e.g., physical aggression) than children of
dren in same-sex cohabiting families had overall heterosexual parents, but that parents’ psycho-
similar outcomes to those in different-sex cohab- logical distress accounted for this difference.
iting families. In a study using the American Moreover, some research suggests benefits to
Community Survey Waves 2008 to 2015, Boer- being in SGM families; Prickett, Martin-Storey,
tien and Benardi (2019) showed that children liv- and Crosnoe (2015) showed that there was an
ing with a same-sex couple were likely to exhibit increase in parenting attention for children in
worse achievement outcomes relative to their gay and lesbian families, which may benefit later
peers in different-sex households in the past, but life outcomes such as educational attainment
that this gap disappeared during the study period. and employment.
A study of psychological adjustment after adop- Although the vast majority of research
tion found no differences in outcomes across focuses on children in same-sex households, a
children in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual fam- small number of studies, primarily qualitative,
ilies (Goldberg, 2013). In contrast, Regnerus examine child well-being in gender-minority
(2012) showed that children who were older than parent families (for a review, see Stotzer,
18 years who reported a parent had a same-sex Herman, & Hasenbush, 2014). For example,
relationship at some point during their child- Pyne et al. (2015) showed that when a parent
hood reported worse well-being outcomes than with minor children transitions, the child’s
children raised in long-term heterosexual mar- well-being was strongly shaped by whether the
ried households. However, Cheng and Powell cisgender parent was transphobic and rejecting
(2015) reanalyzed Regnerus’s data to reveal that or accepting of the transgender parent. Tabor
these negative effects were the result of inappro- (2018) used 30 in-depth interviews with adult
priate comparison groups (e.g., comparing mar- children of transgender parents to document the
ried to divorced families). Moreover, although unique negotiation of role ambiguity children
not viewed as a negative outcome for children, experience when a parent transitions. Signifi-
Goldberg and Garcia (2016) reported that chil- cantly more research is needed on children in
dren in lesbian families had less gender-typical families other than same-sex, gay, or lesbian
behavior than children in heterosexual and gay family structures.
families.
Several recent studies attempt to move
beyond comparing children in same- and Critiques and Future Research
different-sex households and articulate the Research on SGM family-of-origin relation-
unique contextual experiences of being a ships, intimate relationships, and parenthood
child in a SGM family. Lick, Tornello, Riskind, have proliferated in the past decade. Yet impor-
Schmidt, and Patterson (2012) used county-level tant limitations in research on SGM families
persist. Next I provide an account of the follow- show that more than 50% of SGM people are
ing three overarching limitations in SGM family single (Jones, 2017), yet virtually no research
research: (a) a lack of focus on the diversity of explicitly engages the family lives of SGM
SGM family types such as bisexual, transgender, single people.
asexual, and polyamorous families as well as The lack of inclusion of diverse SGM pop-
single SGM people; (b) a lack of racial-ethnic ulations is in part due to data limitations given
and socioeconomic diversity; and (c) a failure the relatively small number of individuals in
to account for the life course of family ties. I these groups, although this is not the case for
outline how future research on SGM families bisexual people, who are among the fastest
should address these three deficits. I also discuss growing sexual-minority group today (Bridges
data and practical constraints that contribute to & Moore, 2018). These data limitations are
these limitations. especially prevalent in demographic and survey
research but also in qualitative research. The
majority of population-based research is reliant
SGM Diversity on a few national surveys of same-sex household
Research in the past decade focuses primarily on rosters that do not ask sexual or gender identity
cisgender gay and lesbian identified people and (e.g., U.S. Census) or rely on questions on sexual
individuals who live in same-sex households. A or gender identity that are limited (e.g., identi-
smaller but important body of research exam- fying oneself as gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual,
ines bisexual and transgender partnered families, or “other”; e.g., National Health Interview Sur-
although research has not kept up with the rapid vey). We need better data—especially nationally
growth of both of these family forms during representative survey-based data—that account
the past decade. Comparing cisgender gay for the range of identities, behaviors, and attrac-
and lesbian families to cisgender heterosexual tions in the SGM community. Although recent
families was an important first intervention to surveys have added sexual identity questions or
a historically cisgender heterosexual-dominant questions on sex at birth and transgender status,
field. Yet there has been very little empirical reliable and valid survey questions that account
research on the families of other SGM popula- for all SGM populations are relatively rare in
tions, including intersex—people born with a datasets that also include comprehensive mea-
range of intersex traits normatively presumed sures of family relationships. Moreover, because
to be exclusively male or female (e.g., physical some SGM groups are small proportions of the
genitalia or gonads incongruent with sex chro- population, analyzed data can be untrustworthy.
mosomes; Davis, 2015); pansexual—someone Future data collection efforts should oversample
attracted to all genders; asexual—someone smaller SGM groups to allow for greater analyt-
who does not experience sexual attraction or ical power.
sexual interest to people of any gender (Carroll, Qualitative research has been more effective
2019); bisexual—someone who is attracted to at providing high-quality, in-depth data on SGM
more than one sex; or polyamorous—someone families today and will be an important aspect
who rejects the monogamous imperative and of SGM family research in the next decade. Yet
is romantically involved with more than one qualitative studies, too, should be stretched to
person at once. These gaps neglect the full range include more marginalized and less-studied pop-
of SGM minority families, especially those ulations within the SGM group to develop new
who may be the most stigmatized as well as theoretical approaches to understanding family
those who offer the most robust challenges to life (Compton, Meadow, & Schilt, 2018). Quali-
paradigms of monogamy, the gender binary, and tative approaches are especially primed to fill the
heteronormativity. Consequently, family forms dearth in research on relatively small subpopula-
outside of the limited cisgender, gay, lesbian, tions (such as intersex, pansexual, polyamorous,
and same-sex scope are marginalized—this and asexual individuals). Future research on
exclusion has important implications for our these populations will lead to new theoretical
ability to fully understand SGM family life. advances that will influence the broader field of
Importantly, research on family life has almost family studies. Moreover, qualitative studies are
exclusively focused on partnered SGM people imperative in articulating the meaning of sexu-
and has failed to articulate the family dynamics ality and gender identities as they change across
of single SGM people. Demographic profiles the next decade.
In the context of family-of-origin ties, bet- SGM groups of young adults today retreat from
ter data with more comprehensive questions on marriage due to queer or feminist principles,
gender identity and sexuality and the oversam- or seek marriage to access the legal and social
pling of SGM subpopulations would allow us to protections afforded to cisgender heterosexual
examine the nature of family-of-origin ties and individuals? How does relationship quality and
the effects of those family ties on well-being predictors of divorce vary across the SGM spec-
for all SGM youth and adults. This is espe- trum? How do more marginalized SGM family
cially important as more youth are identifying in configurations challenge and redefine how we
non-cis, non-hetero categories than ever before, measure the division of labor? In addition, do
and a continued exclusive focus on gay, les- all SGM groups experience health benefits with
bian, and bisexual identities will prevent us from marriage, or is this benefit found only for those
understanding the full range of sexual and gen- that are in monogamous same-sex long-term
der diversity in the next generation of SGM relationships? How do dissolution processes dif-
families. Questions could include the following: fer across the SGM spectrum and what can we
How do SGM youth and adults experience and learn about this dissolution? How do single SGM
reframe family violence, rejection and disown- people conceive of the prospect of intimate rela-
ment, ambivalence, and support? What are the tionships, and do friends become more important
processes through which people with different as sources social support when not in an intimate
SGM identities cope and thrive in less support- relationship? Finally, studies of parenthood must
ive environments? How do parents perceive and definitively move away from proving children
negotiate ties with their SGM children across the in same-sex couples are equally well-off to their
diversity of SGM statuses? How are intergenera- heterosexual counterparts to thinking more cre-
tional ties renegotiated as SGM statuses change? atively about how SGM parents across the spec-
How do single SGM people conceive of their trum are negotiating their parental roles in ways
intergenerational relationships, and how does dependent on socio-institutional and political
being single shape disclosure, identity mainte- contexts. How do single SGM parents negotiate
nance, and family relationships? These are just their SGM identity and find social support and
some of the questions that might emerge when cope with strain in both SGM and cisgender
we broaden the range of SGM diversity within heterosexual communities? These are just a few
the realm of family of origin. of the ways in which the next decade of research
In the context of intimate ties and parenthood, can further advance science on diverse SGM
scholars continue to reify cisgender different-sex family life.
or heterosexual couples as the gold-standard
reference category from which to compare
dynamics and outcomes of cisgender same-sex Integration of Racial-Ethnic
or gay or lesbian couples. To move beyond a and Socioeconomic Diversity
focus on this comparison, future research must There are intersecting aspects of inequality
explore the marital and parental decisions of that shape SGM people’s lives, including gen-
partners across sexual (e.g., polyamorous, asex- der, race-ethnicity, and SES. Yet attention to
ual) and gender (e.g., transgender, genderqueer) multiple, intersecting forms of inequality has
categories and include multipartner and single not been systematically integrated into SGM
families across the SGM spectrum. In doing family research (Acosta, 2018). Racial-ethnic
so, new questions and insights will arise, such minorities make up a larger percent of the SGM
as the following: How do people of differ- population than the general population (Gates,
ent SGM identities understand intimate and 2014), yet research on SGM families lacks racial
parenthood relationships and make decisions diversity as well as thoughtful racial analyses
about entering into these relationships? For with consistent and robust considerations of how
example, polyamorous relationship formation family processes are always already racialized
is notably absent from current research (Ship- regardless of sample racial-ethnic composition
pers, 2016). Bisexual people are more likely (Acosta, 2018). Furthermore, there is a lack of
to be in different-sex marriages than same-sex focus on cross-cultural comparisons as well as
marriages, yet we do not know how bisexu- non-U.S. or non-Western contexts, limiting our
als understand their identity as a SGM within ability to understand the global landscape of
different-sex relationships. Moreover, do various SGM families.
Moreover, this body of work pays inadequate and SES? How do negotiations of rejection or
attention to socioeconomic diversity within the ambivalence depend on racialized and classed
SGM population. Despite assumptions of gay experiences? How are our conceptualizations
affluence, recent research that suggests SGM of what family of origin is or should be depen-
people are socioeconomically disadvantaged dent on White, middle-class SGM notions of
relative to their cisgender heterosexual counter- family? How do sibling and extended fam-
parts (Gates, 2014). Given the racial-ethnic and ily relationships differ across racial-ethnic and
socioeconomic diversity of the SGM population socioeconomic groups, and how does this matter
and the clear importance of race-ethnicity and for health outcomes? What are unique adaptive
SES in every facet of family life, our conclu- pathways taken when SGM of color across
sions thus far provide limited, primarily White SES are faced with family-of-origin rejection
and socioeconomically advantaged views of or strain? Overall, greater theorizing of the
SGM family life. Data limitations prohibit our racial-ethnic and socioeconomic experiences
ability to study SES and race-ethnicity by SGM of the family of origin must be addressed to
status; most national data sources have vari- fully understand the nature of family-of-origin
ables for race and SES but the sample sizes of relationships.
racial-ethnic minority and SES sexual-minority Research consistently shows that intimate
groups are small. Future data collection efforts relationship dynamics are also racialized and
should oversample SGM racial-ethnic groups vary by SES. As such, race-ethnicity and SES
to allow scholars to examine racial-ethnic and are likely central to family relationships among
socioeconomic variation. Notably, even qual- SGM populations. For example, research sug-
itative and smaller-scale research in this area gests that SGM people are more likely to
fails to adequately account for racial-ethnic and date and marry individuals of a different race
socioeconomic diversity; future studies of all than themselves relative to heterosexual and
kinds need to collect a great deal of data from cisgender people. Due to the lower levels of
non-White, non-middle-class populations to marriage and higher rates of parenthood among
drive research forward. racial-ethnic and socioeconomically disad-
A small body of research on family-of-origin vantaged people in the United States today,
relationships reveals the importance of exam- racial-ethnic minority and working-class SGM
ining race-ethnicity variation. In a qualitative individuals may experience a lower likelihood
study with 90 parents and 90 LGB children (ages of marriage and a higher likelihood of parent-
15–24), with 59% of the sample an ethnic minor- hood, yet previous research has not explored
ity, Black, Hispanic, and Latino parents report this possibility nor its implications. Once in
more parental rejection of their children and an intimate relationship, research suggests that
more homonegativity than White parents, with relationship quality, division of labor, and dis-
children corroborating these results (Richter, solution may operate differently by race and
Lindahl, & Malik, 2017). In an ethnographic class (Moore, 2011), and thus work is needed
and in-depth interview study with 40 lesbian, to address how relationship patterns—and the
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth, predictors of these patterns—differ across race
Robinson (2018) showed how families who and class across SGM groups.
were already economically disadvantaged expe- With regard to SGM parenthood, although
rienced additional instability when a child was the past decade confirmed that children with
gender nonconforming, leading to increases in same-sex parents fair equally well as children
adolescent and young adult poverty and home- in different-sex families, the next decade should
lessness. Considerably more research needs turn to how interlocking systems of oppression
to address what might be unique stressors—or including homophobia, racism, and classism
sources of resilience—for SGM youth and adults at the individual and institutional levels mat-
of color and across the socioeconomic spectrum ter for children’s well-being across the SGM
within their family-of-origin relationships. spectrum. Scholars should also examine the
Questions stemming from an intersectional resilient characteristics of children who expe-
approach may include the following: How do rience these multiple vectors of inequality. For
the interpretations, experiences, and conse- example, an intersectional approach should be
quences of family-of-origin support, strain, used to examine how racial-ethnic minority
and ambivalence vary across race-ethnicity parent families experience increased stress and
resiliency as both SGM and racial-ethnic stigma adulthood shape educational outcomes, poverty,
as well as the specific ways in which SGM par- and occupational status later in life? Moreover,
ents who have fewer socioeconomic resources virtually no research examines intergenera-
negotiate parenting intentions and parenting tional ties in later life, yet this is an especially
dynamics. important life course moment given increased
longevity, increased stigma in old age for SGM
people, the rising of “gray divorce,” and poten-
Integrating a Life Course Approach tial loneliness of SGM adults. In later in life, we
Scholars have long articulated the accumulating may ask the following: Do elderly SGM adults
effects family ties play across the life course. in need of care have family-of-origin members
Yet to date research has narrowed in on specific to support their health needs? How is the pro-
family ties within certain life course moments, vision of care for SGM older adults shaped by
most notably family of origin during youth and earlier life experiences with family of origin?
adolescence and romantic ties and parenthood Do siblings and other family members step in to
during mid-life. Yet what is missing is an under- care for aging SGM adults, or do chosen family
standing of how family relationships unfold and members play this important role?
accumulate across the life course as well as In the context of intimate relationships, a life
how cohorts and historical periods shape the course approach suggests that understanding
life experiences of SGM families. A holistic intimate relationships in midlife is dependent
approach to SGM families requires longitudi- on one’s relationship biography in adolescence
nal studies of SGM people from childhood to and young adulthood. For example, the tim-
later life, with attention to cohort and histor- ing and dynamics of a first sexual-minority or
ical period. To answer questions that explore heterosexual relationship will likely have an
life course processes, we need more qualitative impact on subsequent relationship timings and
and quantitative longitudinal datasets that trend dynamics. Thus, we need the full relationship
across time, with attention to how age, period, history—including a full history of sexual
and cohort effects may have significant conse- identities, behaviors, and attractions—to gauge
quences for SGM individuals’ understanding of the meaning and consequences of intimate ties
their own family lives. Even if data cannot be across the life course. Moreover, a life course
prospective over decades, scholars should work approach requires better understanding of his-
to account for these important contextual pro- torical (i.e., period) context and cohort effects,
cesses retrospectively. Data should also capture which means taking into account the recent
the period and cohort effects and the histori- legal, social, and political changes including
cal events that shape the lives of SGM people, marriage legalization and high-profile court
including marriage equality, SGM-related laws cases on discrimination (Baumle & Compton,
and policies, and political change such as new 2015). For example, due to changes in marital
presidential administrations that likely influence law, today’s SGM adolescents have grown up in
SGM family life. A nuanced account of these an environment where marriage between indi-
historical events will be key in understanding viduals of the same sex or gender is possible;
changes in family patterns as we continue into a unique position relative to other generations.
the next decade. Yet we know very little about how different gen-
In terms of family-of-origin ties, significant erations negotiate questions of legality in their
gaps remain in understanding how early life intimate ties based on these different cohorts
experiences with parents translate into mid- and periods. In addition, because relationship
and later life relationships. Future scholars may quality changes over time, the next step of
ask the following: How do family-of-origin research is the use of longitudinal data—both
ties change during the transition to adulthood, qualitative and quantitative—to examine how
and do they become more or less salient for relationship biographies (e.g., moving in and
health and well-being? How do family-of-origin out of relationships) and relationship quality
ties continue to matter for the everyday lives changes across the life course. Longitudinal
of SGM long after adolescence and into old type of data would allow for the identification
age? Do adaptive strategies used to cope with of predictors of SGM divorce and dissolution,
family conflict change over time? Does strain articulating, for example, whether being in a het-
in adolescence, emerging adulthood, and young erosexual relationship earlier in the life course
shape the risk of sexual-minority relationship becoming a parent shift SGM relationships with
dissolution? their own aging parents and family of origin?
Similarly, the majority of research on the divi- Does becoming parents at different life course
sion of labor is in midlife, but we know very stages influence the parent–child relationship
little about the nature of household labor prac- later in the life course, including caregiving pro-
tices both in adolescence or in later life. Because cesses? How would cohort and period changes
the division of labor appears to be related to in parenting intentions and approaches alter
cohort, it may be that younger cohorts have the nature of SGM parenting today? Attention
very different labor negotiations than older SGM to unfolding individual and collective history
cohorts, perhaps due to period changes. For will provide new insights into being a SGM
example, Giddings, Nunley, Schneebaum, and parent today.
Zietz (2014) compared the division of labor of
couples with and without children across genera-
tions including the baby boomers, Generation X, Conclusion
and Generation Y and found that same-sex cou- The number of families with a gender or
ples were less likely than different-sex couples sexual-minority member is on the rise, increas-
to exhibit specialization overall. However, this ing the importance of SGM families in the
gap narrows across cohorts, wherein the division broader field of family studies (Allen & Mendez,
of labor appears more egalitarian for heterosexu- 2018; Powell, Bolzendahl, Geist, & Steelman,
als in later cohorts and potentially less so among 2010). In looking back at the past three decades
same-sex couples. Future research should facil- of research in this area, it is hard not to admire
itate a greater understanding of how and why where we have come from and be humbled by
such changes have shifted over time. Finally, the work that is to be done. As family research
health in later life is of key importance to the continues to include SGM populations, the field
aging SGM population, and intimate ties may will be pushed to reconceptualize the dominant
serve as one protective factor for early mortality heterosexual cisgender paradigm, allowing us
and morbidity. Yet very little research examines to not only better understand family-of-origin,
how SGM intimate relationships protect—or intimate relationship, and parenthood ties but
undermine—health during times of illness and also facilitating a view of more “queer” fam-
injury in later life (see Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., ily relationships of families of choice. This
2016). This research could include a study of decade in review calls on future scholars to fill
caregiving processes when a spouse is sick as research gaps on the broader range of more
well as how relationship conflicts shape health marginalized SGM family ties, include more
over time. Thomeer et al. (2017) showed that gay vigorous examinations of race-ethnicity and
and lesbian couples were much more likely to SES, and develop more robust accounts of fam-
plan for their end of life (e.g., wills, family plan- ily across the life course—inroads buttressed by
ning) than were heterosexual couples. Yet we better data sources across the methodological
know virtually nothing about end-of-life expe- spectrum. These advances will continue to
riences among SGM families (see Marsack & foster not only better empirical work but also
Stephenson, 2018). expand the current limitations of our theoretical
In relation to parenthood, a life course understandings of family life far beyond SGM
approach suggests that the processes of becom- families.
ing and being a parent may differ across the life
course, by age, cohort, and period (i.e., historical
context), yet few studies consider these events Note
in research on SGM parenting. For example, The author thanks Clayton Howard and Mieke Beth
parenthood pathways constraints mean that Thomeer for their feedback on an earlier version of this
article. The author acknowledges financial support from The
some SGM adults become parents later in life Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health and the
than their cisgender heterosexual counterparts, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
but what is unknown is how this shapes parent- and Human Development (R03HD078754); The Ohio State
ing practices and subsequent parent well-being? University Institute for Population Research through a grant
from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for
Who becomes parents at any given point in Child Health and Human Development of the National
the life course, and who wants to parent but Institutes of Health (P2CHD058484); and The Ohio State
is unable earlier in the life course? How does University Department of Sociology.
References gay and lesbian married couples. Journal of Homo-

sexuality, 65, 1985-2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Aarskaug Wiik, K., Seierstad, A., & Noack, T. (2014). 00918369.2017.1423213
Divorce in Norwegian same-sex marriages and Bouris, A., Guilamo-Ramos, V., Pickard, A., Shiu,
registered partnerships: The role of children. Jour- C., Loosier, P. S., Dittus, P., … Waldmiller, J. M.
nal of Marriage and Family, 76(5), 919–929. (2010). A systematic review of parental influ-
Acosta, K. L. (2013). Amigas y amantes: Sexually ences on the health and well-being of lesbian, gay,
nonconforming Latinas negotiate family. New and bisexual youth: Time for a new public health
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. research and practice agenda. The Journal of Pri-
Acosta, K. L. (2018). Queering family scholarship: mary Prevention, 31(5–6), 273–309.
Theorizing from the borderlands. Journal of Fam- Bridges, T., & Moore, M. R. (2018). Young women
ily Theory & Review, 10(2), 406–418. https://doi of color and shifting sexual identities. Con-
.org/10.1111/jftr.12263 texts, 17(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/
adams, J., & Light, R. (2015). Scientific consensus, 1536504218767125.
the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Social Brumbaugh-Johnson, S. M., & Hull, K. E. (2018).
Science Research, 53, 300–310. https://doi.org/10 Coming out as transgender: Navigating the social
.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.06.008 implications of a transgender identity. Journal of
Allen, S. H., & Mendez, S. N. (2018). Hegemonic het- Homosexuality, 66, 1148–1177. https://doi.org/10
eronormativity: Toward a new era of queer family .1080/00918369.2018.1493253
theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), Budge, S. L., Adelson, J. L., & Howard, K. A. (2013).
70–86. Anxiety and depression in transgender individuals:
Alonzo, D. J., & Buttitta, D. J. (2019). Is “coming The roles of transition status, loss, social support,
out” still relevant? Social justice implications for and coping. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
LGB-member families. Journal of Family Theory Psychology, 81(3), 545–557.
and Review. Advance online publication. https:// Calzo, J. P., Mays, V. M., Björkenstam, C., Björken-
doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12333 stam, E., Kosidou, K., & Cochran, S. D. (2019).
Augustine, J. M., Aveldanes, J. M., & Pfeffer, C. A. Parental sexual orientation and children’s psycho-
(2017). Are the parents alright? Time in self-care logical well-being: 2013–2015 National Health
in same-sex and different-sex two-parent families Interview Survey. Child Development, 90(4),
with children. Population Review, 56(2), 49–77. 1097-1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12989
https://doi.org/10.1353/prv.2017.0007 Cao, H., Zhou, N., Fine, M., Liang, Y., Li, J., &
Baumle, A. K. (2014). Same-sex cohabiting elders Mills-Koonce, W. R. (2017). Sexual minority
versus different-sex cohabiting and married elders: stress and same-sex relationship well-being: A
Effects of relationship status and sex of partner meta-analysis of research prior to the US Nation-
on economic and health outcomes. Social Sci- wide legalization of same-sex marriage. Journal of
ence Research, 43, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Marriage and Family, 79(5), 1258–1277. https://
j.ssresearch.2013.09.003 doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12415
Belawski, S. E., & Sojka, C. J. (2014). Intimate rela- Carpenter, C., Eppink, S. T., Gonzales, G., Jr., &
tionships. In L. Erickson-Schroth (Ed.), Trans bod- McKay, T. (2018). Effects of access to legal
ies, trans selves: A resource for the transgender same-sex marriage on marriage and health:
community (pp. 335–354). Oxford, UK: Oxford Evidence from BRFSS (No. w24651). Cam-
University Press. bridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Biblarz, T. J., & Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisex- Research.
ual, and transgender families. Journal of Mar- Carroll, M. (2018). Managing without moms: Gay
riage and Family, 72(3), 480–497. https://doi.org/ fathers, incidental activism, and the politics
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00714.x of parental gender. Journal of Family Issues,
Boertien, D., & Benardi, F. (2019). Same-sex parents 39(13), 3410–3435. https://doi.org/10.1177/
and children’s school progress: An association that 0192513X18783229
disappeared over time. Demography, 56, 477–501. Carroll, M. (2019). Asexuality and its implications for
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0759-3 LGBTQ-parent families. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R.
Bos, H. M., Knox, J. R., van Rijn-van Gelderen, L., & Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in
Gartrell, N. K. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex research and implications for practice (2nd ed.).
parent households and child health outcomes: New York: Springer.
Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Catalpa, J. M., & McGuire, J. K. (2018). Fam-
Health. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral ily boundary ambiguity among transgender youth.
Pediatrics, 37(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10 Family Relations, 67(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/
.1097/DBP.0000000000000288 10.1111/fare.12304
Bosley-Smith, E. R., & Reczek, C. (2018). Before Cheng, S., & Powell, B. (2015). Measurement, meth-
and after “I Do”: Marriage processes for mid-life ods, and divergent patterns: Reassessing the effects
of same-sex parents. Social Science Research, Doty, N. D., Willoughby, B. L., Lindahl, K. M., &
52, 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch Malik, N. M. (2010). Sexuality related social sup-
.2015.04.005 port among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Jour-
Civettini, N. (2015). Gender display, time availability, nal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1134–1147.
and relative resources: Applicability to housework https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9566-x
contributions of members of same-sex couples. Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation
International Social Science Review, 91(1), 1. matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive fami-
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.northgeo lies with school-age children. Developmental Psy-
rgia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scho chology, 53(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/
lar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1112&co dev0000228
ntext=issr Farr, R. H., Forsell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010).
Compton, D., Meadow, T., & Schilt, K. (2018). Other, Gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents:
please specify. Berkeley, CA: University of Cali- Couple and relationship issues. Journal of GLBT
fornia Press. Family Studies, 6(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10
Baumle, A. K., & Compton, D. R. (2015). Legalizing .1080/15504281003705436
LGBT families: How the law shapes parenthood. Farr, R. H., Ravvina, Y., & Grotevant, H. D. (2018).
New York: New York University Press. Birth family contact experiences among lesbian,
D’Amico, E., & Julien, D. (2012). Disclosure of gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents with
sexual orientation and gay, lesbian, and bisexual school-age children. Family Relations, 67(1),
youths’ adjustment: Associations with past and 132–146.
current parental acceptance and rejection. Journal Feinstein, B. A., Thomann, M., Coventry, R., Macapa-
of GLBT Family Studies, 8(3), 215–242. https://doi gal, K., Mustanski, B., & Newcomb, M. E. (2018).
.org/10.1080/1550428X.2012.677232 Gay and bisexual adolescent boys’ perspectives
D’Amico, E., Julien, D., Tremblay, N., & Char- on parent–adolescent relationships and parenting
trand, E. (2015). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths practices related to teen sex and dating. Archives
coming out to their parents: Parental reactions of Sexual Behavior, 47(6), 1825–1837. https://doi
and youths’ outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family .org/10.1007/s10508-017-1057-7
Studies, 11(5), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Feinstein, B. A., Wadsworth, L. P., Davila, J., &
1550428X.2014.981627 Goldfried, M. R. (2014). Do parental acceptance
Davis, G. (2015). Contesting intersex: The dubi- and family support moderate associations between
ous diagnosis. New York: New York University dimensions of minority stress and depressive
Press. symptoms among lesbians and gay men? Profes-
DeFilippis, J. N., Yarbrough, M. W., & Jones, A. sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4),
(2018). Queer activism: After marriage equality. 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035393
Philadelphia, PA: Routledge. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Shiu, C., Bryan, A. E.,
Denes, A., & Afifi, T. D. (2014). Coming out again: Goldsen, J., & Kim, H. J. (2016). Health equity
Exploring GLBQ individuals’ communication and aging of bisexual older adults: Pathways of risk
with their parents after the first coming out. and resilience. Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10(3), 298–325. Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(3),
Denney, J. T., Gorman, B. K., & Barrera, C. B. (2013). 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw120
Families, resources, and adult health: Where do Frost, D. M. (2011). Stigma and intimacy in same-sex
sexual minorities fit? Journal of Health and Social relationships: A narrative approach. Journal of
Behavior, 54(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Family Psychology, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10
0022146512469629 .1037/2326-3598.1.S.49
Dierckx, M., Mortelmans, D., Motmans, J., & Frost, D. M., LeBlanc, A. J., de Vries, B.,
T’Sjoen, G. (2017). Resilience in families in Alston-Stepnitz, E., Stephenson, R., & Woody-
transition: What happens when a parent is att, C. (2017). Couple-level minority stress:
transgender? Family Relations, 66(3), 399–411. An examination of same-sex couples’ unique
Dillender, M. (2014). The death of marriage? The experiences. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
effects of new forms of legal recognition on mar- ior, 58(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/
riage rates in the United States. Demography, 0022146517736754
51(2), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524- Fruhauf, C. A., & Mahoney, D. (2010). Older GLBT
013-0277-2 family and community life. London: Routledge.
Doan, L., & Quadlin, N. (2019). Partner character- Garcia, M. A., & Umberson, D. (2019). Marital
istics and perceptions of responsibility for house- strain and psychological distress in same-sex and
work and child care. Journal of Marriage and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 81, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf Family, 81(5), 1253-1268. https://doi.org/10.1111/
.12526 jomf.12582
Garmarel, K. E., Reisner, S. L., Laurenceau, J. P., Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M.
Nemoto, T., & Operario, D. (2014). Gender minor- (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay,
ity stress, mental health, and relationship qual- and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of
ity: A dyadic investigation of transgender women Marriage and Family, 74(4), 812–828. https://doi
and their cisgender male partners. Journal of Fam- .org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00992.x
ily Psychology, 28(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10 Goldberg, S. K., & Conron, K. J. (2018). How many
.1037/a0037171 same-sex couples in the U.S. are raising children?
Gates, G. J. (2014). LGBT demographics: Compar- Retrieved from The Williams Institute website:
isons among population-based surveys. Retrieved https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/
from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp- uploads/Parenting-Among-Same-Sex-Couples
content/uploads/lgbt-demogs-sep-2014.pdf .pdf
Gates, G. J. (2015). Marriage and family: LGBT Goldsen, J., Bryan, A. E. B., Kim, H.-J., Muarco, A.,
individuals and same-sex couples. The Future of Jen, S., & Fredriksen-Golsen, K. I. (2017). Who
Children, 25, 67–87. says I do: The changing context of marriage and
Gates, G. J., & Newport, F. (2015). An estimated health and quality of life for LGBT older adults.
780,000 Americans in same-sex marriages. The Gerontologist, 57, S5–S62. https://doi.org/10
Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/ .1093/geront/gnw174
182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex- Gonzales, G., & Henning-Smith, C. (2015). Dispar-
marriages.aspx ities in health and disability among older adults
Geist, C., & Ruppanner, L. (2018). Mission impos- in same-sex cohabiting relationships. Journal of
sible? New housework theories for changing fam- Aging and Health, 27(3), 432–453. https://doi.org/
ilies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 10.1177/0898264314551332
242–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12245 Gotta, G., Green, R. J., Rothblum, E., Solomon, S.,
Giddings, L., Nunley, J. M., Schneebaum, A., & Balsam, K., & Schwartz, P. (2011). Heterosex-
Zietz, J. (2014). Birth cohort and the specializa- ual, lesbian, and gay male relationships: A com-
tion gap between same-sex and different-sex cou- parison of couples in 1975 and 2000. Family
Process, 50(3), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ples. Demography, 51(2), 509–534. https://doi.org/
j.1545-5300.2011.01365.x
10.1007/s13524-013-0267-4
Grafsky, E. L., Hickey, K., Nguyen, H. N., & Wall,
Glass, V. Q., & Few-Demo, A. L. (2013). Complex-
J. D. (2018). Youth disclosure of sexual orienta-
ities of informal social support arrangements for
tion to siblings and extended family. Family Rela-
Black lesbian couples. Family Relations, 62(5),
tions, 67(1), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare
714–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12036
.12299
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). “Doing” and “undoing” gen- Graham, J. M., & Barnow, Z. B. (2013). Stress and
der: The meaning and division of housework in social support in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual
same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & couples: Direct effects and buffering models. Jour-
Review, 5(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr nal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 569–578. https://
.12009 doi.org/10.1037/a0033420
Goldberg, A. E., & Garcia, R. (2015). Predictors of Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R., & Frank, J. A.
relationship dissolution in lesbian, gay, and het- (2011). Aspects of psychological resilience among
erosexual adoptive parents. Journal of Family Psy- transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(2),
chology, 29(3), 394–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011
fam0000095 .541347
Goldberg, A. E., & Garcia, R. L. (2016). Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Bellatorre, A., Lee, Y., Finch,
Gender-typed behavior over time in children B. K., Muennig, P., & Fiscella, K. (2014). Struc-
with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Jour- tural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual
nal of Family Psychology, 30(7), 854–865. https:// minority populations. Social Science & Medicine,
doi.org/10.1037/fam0000226 103, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed
Goldberg, A. E., & Gartrell, N. K. (2014). LGB-parent .2013.06.005
families: The current state of the research and Hatzenbuehler, M. L., O’Cleirigh, C., Grasso, C.,
directions for the future. In J. B. Benson (Ed.), Mayer, K., Safren, S., & Bradford, J. (2012).
Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care
46, pp. 57–88). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. https:// use and expenditures in sexual minority men:
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800285-8.00003-0 A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, Public Health, 102(2), 285–291.
social context, and mental health: Lesbian and Hilton, A. N., & Szymanski, D. M. (2011). Fam-
gay couples across the transition to adoptive ily dynamics and changes in sibling of origin
parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, relationship after lesbian and gay sexual orien-
58(1), 139–150. tation disclosure. Contemporary Family Therapy,
33(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591- Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohab-

011-9157-3 itation, different-sex cohabitation, and marriage.
Holway, G. V., Umberson, D., & Donnelly, R. (2018). Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 973–988.
Health and health behavior concordance between https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01000
spouses in same-sex and different-sex marriages. .x
Social Currents, 5(4), 319–327. https://doi.org/10 LeBlanc, A. J., Frost, D. M., & Bowen, K. (2018).
.1177/2329496517734570 Legal marriage, unequal recognition, and mental
Jhang, J. (2018). Scaffolding in family relationships: health among same-sex couples. Journal of Mar-
A grounded theory of coming out to family. Fam- riage and Family, 80(2), 397–408. https://doi.org/
ily Relations, 67(1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10 10.1111/jomf.12460
.1111/fare.12302 Lick, D. J., Tornello, S. L., Riskind, R. G., Schmidt,
Jones, J.M. (2017). In U.S. 10.2% of LGBT adults K. M., & Patterson, C. J. (2012). Social climate for
now married to same-sex spouse. Retrieved from sexual minorities predicts well-being among het-
Gallup website: https://news.gallup.com/poll/ erosexual offspring of lesbian and gay parents. Sex-
212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx uality Research and Social Policy, 9(2), 99–112.
Joyner, K., Manning, W., & Bogle, R. (2017). Gender https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-012-0081-6
and the stability of same-sex and different-sex Liu, H., Reczek, C., & Brown, D. (2013). Same-sex
relationships among young adults. Demogra- cohabitors and health: The role of race-ethnicity,
phy, 54(6), 2351–2374. https://doi.org/10.1007/ gender, and socioeconomic status. Journal of
s13524-017-0633-8 Health and Social Behavior, 54(1), 25–45. https://
Joyner, K., Manning, W., & Prince, B. (2019). The doi.org/10.1177/0022146512468280
qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples in Liu, H., & Wilkinson, L. (2017). Marital status
young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, and perceived discrimination among transgender
81, 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12535 people. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(5),
Kail, B. L., Acosta, K. L., & Wright, E. R. (2015). 1295–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12424
State-level marriage equality and the health of Macapagal, K., Greene, G. J., Rivera, Z., & Mus-
tanski, B. (2015). “The best is always yet to
same-sex couples. American Journal of Public
come”: Relationship stages and processes among
Health, 105(6), 1101–1105.
young LGBT couples. Journal of Family Psy-
Kazyak, E., Park, N., McQuillan, J., & Greil, A. L.
chology, 29(3), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/
(2016). Attitudes toward motherhood among sex-
fam0000094
ual minority women in the United States. Journal
Mamo, L., & Alston-Stepnitz, E. (2015). Queer
of Family Issues, 37(13), 1771–1796. https://doi
intimacies and structural inequalities: New direc-
.org/10.1177/0192513X14554396 tions in stratified reproduction. Journal of Family
Kelly, M., & Hauck, E. (2015). Doing housework, Issues, 36(4), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/
redoing gender: Queer couples negotiate the 0192513X14563796
household division of labor. Journal of GLBT Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., & Stykes, J. B. (2016).
Family Studies, 11(5), 438–464. https://doi.org/10 Same-sex and different-sex cohabiting couple rela-
.1080/1550428X.2015.1006750 tionship stability. Demography, 53(4), 937–953.
Kimport, K. (2013). Queering marriage? Challeng- https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0490-x
ing family formation in the United States. New Manning, W. D., Fettro, M. N., & Lamidi, E. (2014).
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Child well-being in same-sex parent families:
Klein, A., & Golub, S. A. (2016). Family rejection as Review of research prepared for American Soci-
a predictor of suicide attempts and substance mis- ological Association amicus brief. Population
use among transgender and gender nonconform- Research and Policy Review, 33(4), 485–502.
ing adults. LGBT Health, 3(3), 193–199. https:// https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6
doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2015.0111 Marsack, J., & Stephenson, R. (2018). Barriers to
Kuvalanka, K. A., Weiner, J. L., Munroe, C., Gold- end-of-life care for lgbt persons in the absence of
berg, A. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Trans and legal marriage or adequate legal documentation.
gender-nonconforming children and their care- LGBT Health, 5(5), 273–283. https://doi.org/10
givers: Gender presentations, peer relations, .1089/lgbt.2016.0182
and well-being at baseline. Journal of Family McConnell, E. A., Birkett, M., & Mustanski, B.
Psychology, 31(7), 889–899. https://doi.org/10 (2016). Families matter: Social support and
.1037/fam0000338 mental health trajectories among lesbian, gay,
Lamont, E. (2017). “We can write the scripts bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Ado-
ourselves”: Queer challenges to heteronorma- lescent Health, 59(6), 674–680. https://doi.org/10
tive courtship practices. Gender & Society, .1016/j.jadohealth.2016.07.026
31(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/ McGuire, J. K., Catalpa, J. M., Lacey, V., &
0891243217723883 Kuvalanka, K. A. (2016). Ambiguous loss as
a framework for interpreting gender transitions Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., &
in families. Journal of Family Theory & Review, McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of
8(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12159 transgender children who are supported in their
McGuire, J. K., Kuvalanka, K. A., Catalpa, J. M., & identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20153223.
Toomey, R. B. (2016). Transfamily theory: How Oswald, R. F., Routon, J. M., McGuire, J. K., & Hol-
the presence of trans* family members informs man, E. G. (2018). Tolerance versus support: Per-
gender development in families. Journal of Family ceptions of residential community climate among
Theory & Review, 8(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10 LGB parents. Family Relations, 67(1), 41–54.
.1111/jftr.12159 https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12292
Meadow, T. (2018). Trans kids: Being gendered in the Pachankis, J. E., Sullivan, T. J., & Moore, N. F.
twenty-first century. Berkeley, CA: University of (2018). A 7-year longitudinal study of sexual
California Press. minority young men’s parental relationships
Meier, A., Hull, K. E., & Ortyl, T. A. (2009). Young and mental health. Journal of Family Psychol-
adult relationship values at the intersection of ogy, 32(8), 1068–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/
gender and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and fam0000427
Family, 71(3), 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j Padilla, Y. C., Crisp, C., & Rew, D. L. (2010). Parental
.1741-3737.2009.00616.x acceptance and illegal drug use among gay, les-
Meier, S. C., Sharp, C., Michonski, J., Babcock, J. C., bian, and bisexual adolescents: Results from a
& Fitzgerald, K. (2013). Romantic relationships national survey. Social Work, 55(3), 265–275.
of female-to-male trans men: A descriptive study. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/55.3.265
International Journal of Transgenderism, 14(2), Paine, E. A., Umberson, D., & Reczek, C. (2019). Sex
75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2013 in midlife: Women’s sexual experiences in lesbian
.791651 and straight marriages. Journal of Marriage and
Montano, G. T., McCauley, H. L., Miller, E., Chisolm, Family, 81(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf
D. J., & Marshal, M. P. (2017). Differences in .12508
parental monitoring components and their asso- Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., Gamarel, K. E., & Grov,
ciated health indicators between sexual-minority
C. (2012). Non-monogamy and sexual relationship
and heterosexual girls. Journal of GLBT Family
quality among same-sex male couples. Journal
Studies, 13(3), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/
of Family Psychology, 26(5), 669–677. https://doi
1550428X.2016.1200507
.org/10.1037/a0029561
Montano, G. T., Thoma, B. C., Paglisotti, T., Weiss,
Pastrana, A. J. (2015). Being out to others: The rel-
P. M., Shultz, M. K., McCauley, H. L., … Mar-
ative importance of family support, identity and
shal, M. P. (2018). Disparities in parental support
and parental attachment between heterosexual and religion for LGBT Latina/os. Latino Studies, 13(1),
sexual minority youth: A meta-analysis. Journal 88–112. https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2014.69
of Adolescent Health, 62(2), S32–S33. https://doi Patterson, C. J. (2000). Sexual orientation and family
.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.11.065 life: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the
Moore, M. R. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identi- Family, 62, 1052–1069.
ties, relationships and motherhood among Black Patterson, C. J. (2017). Parents’ sexual orientation and
women. Los Angeles: University of California children’s development. Child Development Per-
Press. spectives, 11(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Moore, M. R., & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, M. (2013). cdep.12207
LGBT sexuality and families at the start of the Payne, K. K., & Manning, W. D. (2015). Num-
twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, ber of children living in same-sex couple house-
39, 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- holds, 2013 (National Center for Family and Mar-
soc-071312-145643 riage Research Family Profile FP-15-04). Bowling
Needham, B. L., & Austin, E. L. (2010). Sexual Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
orientation, parental support, and health during the Pearson, J., & Wilkinson, L. (2013). Family rela-
transition to young adulthood. Journal of Youth tionships and adolescent well-being: Are families
and Adolescence, 39(10), 1189–1198. https://doi equally protective for same-sex attracted youth?
.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9533-6 Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 376–393.
Norwood, K. (2013). Meaning matters: Framing trans https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9865-5
identity in the context of family relationships. Perales, F., & Baxter, J. (2018). Sexual identity and
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9(2), 152–178. relationship quality in Australia and the United
https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2013.765262 Kingdom. Family Relations, 67(1), 55–69. https://
Ocobock, A. (2013). The power and limits of mar- doi.org/10.1111/fare.12293
riage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, Pfeffer, C. A. (2010). “Women’s work”? Women
191–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737 partners of transgender men doing housework and
.2012.01032.x emotion work. Journal of Marriage and Family,
72(1), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- Issues, 37(15), 2189–2212. https://doi.org/10

3737.2009.00690.x .1177/0192513X14566638
Pfeffer, C. A. (2016). Queering families: The post- Reczek, C. (2016b). Ambivalence in gay and les-
modern partnerships of cisgender women and bian family relationships. Journal of Marriage and
transgender men. Oxford: Oxford University Family, 78(3), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Press. jomf.12308
Platt, L. F., & Bolland, K. S. (2017). Trans* partner Reczek, C., Liu, H., & Spiker, R. (2014). A
relationships: A qualitative exploration. Journal of population-based study of alcohol use in same-sex
GLBT Family Studies, 13(2), 163–185. https://doi and different-sex unions. Journal of Marriage and
.org/10.1080/1550428X.2016.1195713 Family, 76(3), 557–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Pollitt, A. M., Muraco, J. A., Grossman, A. H., & jomf.12113
Russell, S. T. (2017). Disclosure stress, social sup- Reczek, C., Liu, H., & Spiker, R. (2017). Self-rated
port, and depressive symptoms among cisgender health at the intersection of sexual identity
bisexual youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, and union status. Social Science Research, 63,
79(5), 1278–1294. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch
.12418 .2016.09.013
Potârcă, G., Mills, M., & Neberich, W. (2015). Rela- Reczek, C., Spiker, R., Liu, H., & Crosnoe, R.
tionship preferences among gay and lesbian online (2016). Family structure and child health: Does
daters: Individual and contextual influences. Jour- the sex composition of parents matter? Demogra-
nal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 523–541. phy, 53(5), 1605–1630. https://doi.org/10.1007/
https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12177 s13524-016-0501-y
Potter, D. (2012). Same-sex parent families and chil- Reczek, C., Spiker, R., Liu, H., & Crosnoe, R. (2017).
dren’s academic achievement. Journal of Mar- The promise and perils of population research
riage and Family, 74(3), 556–571. https://doi.org/ on same-sex families. Demography, 54(6),
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00966.x 2385–2397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-
Potter, D., & Potter, E. C. (2017). Psychosocial 0630-y
well-being in children of same-sex parents: A lon- Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2012). Gender, health
gitudinal analysis of familial transitions. Journal behavior, and intimate relationships: Lesbian, gay,
of Family Issues, 38(16), 2303–2328. https://doi and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine,
.org/10.1177/0192513X16646338 74(11), 1783–1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Powell, B., Bolzendahl, C., Geist, C., & Steelman, .socscimed.2011.11.011
L. C. (2010). Counted out. New York: Same sex Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2016). Greedy spouse,
relations and Americans’ definitions of family. needy parent: The marital dynamics of gay,
Prickett, K. C., Martin-Storey, A., & Crosnoe, R. lesbian, and heterosexual intergenerational care-
(2015). A research note on time with children givers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4),
in different-and same-sex two-parent families. 957–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12318
Demography, 52(3), 905–918. https://doi.org/10 Regnerus, M. (2012). How different are the adult chil-
.1007/s13524-015-0385-2 dren of parents who have same-sex relationships?
Pyne, J., Bauer, G., & Bradley, K. (2015). Trans- Findings from the New Family Structures Study.
phobia and other stressors impacting trans parents. Social Science Research, 41(4), 752–770. https://
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11(2), 107–126. doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009
https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2014.941127 Richards, M. A., Rothblum, E. D., Beauchaine,
Rahilly, E. P. (2015). The gender binary meets T. P., & Balsam, K. F. (2017). Adult children of
the gender-variant child: Parents’ negotiations same-sex and heterosexual couples: Demographic
with childhood gender variance. Gender & Soci- “thriving.”. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
ety, 29(3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X
0891243214563069 .2016.1164648
Reczek, C. (2012). The promotion of unhealthy habits Richter, B. E., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2017).
in gay, lesbian, and straight intimate partnerships. Examining ethnic differences in parental rejection
Social Science & Medicine, 75(6), 1114–1121. of LGB youth sexual identity. Journal of Fam-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.019 ily Psychology, 31(2), 244–249. https://doi.org/10
Reczek, C. (2014). The intergenerational relationships .1037/fam0000235
of gay men and lesbian women. Journals of Geron- Riggle, E. D., Drabble, L., Veldhuis, C. B., Woot-
tology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social ton, A., & Hughes, T. (2018). The impact of
Sciences, 69(6), 909–919. https://doi.org/10.1093/ marriage equality on sexual minority women’s
geronb/gbu042 relationships with their family of origin. Journal
Reczek, C. (2016a). Parental disapproval and gay of Homosexuality, 65, 1190–1206. https://doi.org/
and lesbian relationship quality. Journal of Family 10.1080/00918369.2017.1407611
Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., & Horne, S. G. (2010). Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J.
Psychological distress, well-being, and legal (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of nega-
recognition in same-sex couple relationships. tive health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian,
Journal of Family Psychology, 24(1), 82–86. gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1),
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017942 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3524
Riskind, R. G., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parent- Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., &
ing intentions and desires among childless les- Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in ado-
bian, gay, and heterosexual individuals. Journal of lescence and the health of LGBT young adults.
Family Psychology, 24(1), 78–81. https://doi.org/ Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric
10.1037/a0017941 Nursing, 23(4), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Riskind, R. G., & Tornello, S. L. (2017). Sexual ori- j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x
entation and future parenthood in a 2011–2013 Sanger, T. (2010). Trans people’s partnerships:
nationally representative United States sample. Towards an ethics of intimacy. Heidelberg,
Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6), 792–798. Germany: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000316 Scherrer, K. S., Kazyak, E., & Schmitz, R. (2015).
Robinson, B. A. (2018). Conditional families and les- Getting “bi” in the family: Bisexual people’s
bian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth disclosure experiences. Journal of Marriage and
homelessness: Gender, sexuality, family instabil- Family, 77(3), 680–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ity, and rejection. Journal of Marriage and Family, jomf.12190
80, 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12466 Shilo, G., & Savaya, R. (2011). Effects of fam-
Rosenfeld, D. (2010). Nontraditional families and ily and friend support on LGB youths’ mental
childhood progress through school. Demography, health and sexual orientation milestones. Fam-
47, 755–775. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0112 ily Relations, 60(3), 318–330. https://doi.org/10
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2014). Couple longevity in the era .1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00648.x
of same-sex marriage in the United States. Journal Shilo, G., & Savaya, R. (2012). Mental health of les-
of Marriage and Family, 76(5), 905–918. https:// bian, gay, and bisexual youth and young adults:
doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12141 Differential effects of age, gender, religiosity, and
Rosenthal, L., & Starks, T. J. (2015). Relationship sexual orientation. Journal of Research on Adoles-
stigma and relationship outcomes in interracial and cence, 22(2), 310–325.
same-sex relationships: Examination of sources Shippers, M. (2016). Beyond monogamy: Polyamory
and buffers. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(6), and the future of polyqueer sexualities. New York:
818–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000116 New York University Press.
Ross, L. E., & Dobinson, C. (2013). Where is the "B" Shulman, J. L., Gotta, G., & Green, R. J. (2012).
in LGBT parenting? A call for research on bisexual Will marriage matter? Effects of marriage antic-
parenting. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), ipated by same-sex couples. Journal of Family
LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and Issues, 33(2), 158–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/
implications for practice (pp. 87–103). New York, 0192513X11406228
NY: Springer. Simons, L., Schrager, S. M., Clark, L. F., Belzer,
Rothblum, E. D. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and M., & Olson, J. (2013). Parental support and men-
transgender siblings. Sibling development: Impli- tal health among transgender adolescents. Journal
cations for mental health practitioners. Heidel- of Adolescent Health, 53(6), 791–793. https://doi
berg, Germany: Springer. .org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.019
Rothman, E. F., Sullivan, M., Keyes, S., & Boehmer, Snapp, S. D., Watson, R. J., Russell, S. T., Diaz,
U. (2012). Parents’ supportive reactions to sex- R. M., & Ryan, C. (2015). Social support net-
ual orientation disclosure associated with better works for LGBT young adults: Low cost strategies
health: Results from a population-based survey for positive adjustment. Family Relations, 64(3),
of LGB adults in Massachusetts. Journal of 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12124
Homosexuality, 59(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10 Solebello, N., & Elliott, S. (2011). “We want them
.1080/00918369.2012.648878 to be as heterosexual as possible” fathers talk
Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2016). Mental health in about their teen children’s sexuality. Gender &
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Society, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/
youth. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 0891243211403926
12, 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- Steinbugler, A. C. (2012). Beyond loving: Intimate
clinpsy-021815-093153 racework in lesbian, gay, and straight interra-
Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2019). Sex- cial relationships. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
ual minority youth, social change, and Press.
health: A developmental collision. Research Stotzer, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Hasenbush, A.
in Human Development, 16(1), 5–20. (2014). Transgender parenting: A review of
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2018.1537772 existing research. Retrieved from The Williams
Institute website: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/ Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., Reczek, C., &
3rp0v7qv Donnelly, R. (2016). Physical illness in gay,
Sumontha, J., Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2016). lesbian, and heterosexual marriages: Gendered
Social support and coparenting among lesbian, dyadic experiences. Journal of Health and Social
gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents. Journal Behavior, 57(4), 517–531. https://doi.org/10
of Family Psychology, 30(8), 987–996. https://doi .1177/0022146516671570
.org/10.1037/fam0000253 van Eeden-Moorefield, B., & Benson, K. E. (2014).
Swendener, A., & Woodell, B. (2017). Predictors A conditional process model explaining partnered
of family support and well-being among Black gay men’s perceived relationship stability. Fam-
and Latina/o sexual minorities. Journal of GLBT ily Relations, 63(4), 469–481. https://doi.org/10
Family Studies, 13(4), 357–379. .1111/fare.12078
Tabor, J. (2018). Mom, Dad, or somewhere Verbakel, E., & Kalmijn, M. (2014). Assortative mat-
in-between: Role-relational ambiguity and chil- ing among Dutch married and cohabiting same-sex
dren of transgender parents. Journal of Marriage and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and
and Family, 81, 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Family, 76(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf
jomf.12537 .12084
Tasker, F., & Delvoye, M. (2015). Moving out of the Vinjamuri, M. (2015). Reminders of heteronorma-
shadows: Accomplishing bisexual motherhood. tivity: Gay adoptive fathers navigating uninvited
Sex Roles, 73, 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/ social interactions. Family Relations, 64(2),
s11199-015-0503-z 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12118
Thomeer, M. B., Donnelly, R., Reczek, C., & Umber- Ward, J. (2010). Gender labor: Transmen, femmes,
son, D. (2017). Planning for future care and the end and collective work of transgression. Sexual-
of life: A qualitative analysis of gay, lesbian, and ities, 13(2), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/
heterosexual couples. Journal of Health and Social 1363460709359114
Behavior, 58(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Watson, R. J., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T.
0022146517735524 (2019). Sources of social support and mental health
Thomeer, M. B., Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2015). among LGB youth. Youth & Society, 51(1), 30–48.
Gendered emotion work around physical health https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16660110
problems in mid-and later-life marriages. Jour- Watson, R. J., Rose, H. A., Doull, M., Adjei, J., &
nal of Aging Studies, 32, 12–22. https://doi.org/10 Saewyc, E. (2019). Worsening perceptions of fam-
.1016/j.jaging.2014.12.001 ily connectedness and parent support for lesbian,
Tornello, S. L., Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2011). gay, and bisexual adolescents. Journal of Child
Predictors of parenting stress among gay adoptive and Family Studies. Advance online publication.
fathers in the United States. Journal of Family Psy- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01489-3
chology, 25(4), 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Whitton, S. W., & Kuryluk, A. D. (2014). Associa-
a0024480 tions between relationship quality and depressive
Tornello, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2016). Gay grand- symptoms in same-sex couples. Journal of Fam-
fathers: Intergenerational relationships and men- ily Psychology, 28(4), 571–576. https://doi.org/10
tal health. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(5), .1037/fam0000011
543–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000193 Widiss, D. A. (2016). Legal recognition of same-sex
Tornello, S. L., Sonnenberg, B. N., & Patterson, C. J. relationships: New possibilities for research on the
(2015). Division of labor among gay fathers: Asso- role of marriage law in household labor allocation.
ciations with parent, couple, and child adjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 10–29.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12123
Diversity, 2(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Williams, M. E., & Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. (2014).
0893-3200.12.3.402 Same-sex partnerships and the health of older
Trandafir, M. (2015). Legal recognition of same-sex adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(5),
couples and family formation. Demography, 558–570.
52(1), 113–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524- Wight, R. G., LeBlanc, A. J., & Badgett, M. V.
014-0361-2 L. (2013). Same-sex legal marriage and psycho-
Ueno, K. (2010). Mental health differences between logical well-being: Findings from the California
young adults with and without same-sex contact: Health Interview Survey. American Journal of
A simultaneous examination of underlying Public Health, 103(2), 339–346.
mechanisms. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
ior, 51(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022146510386793

10 1111@jomf 12607

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1111@jomf 12607

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1111@jomf 12607

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corinne Reczek The Ohio State University

Sexual- and Gender-Minority Families:

Table 1. Key Terms

Key term Definition

SGM Sexual and gender minority (see below)

SGM family-of-origin relationships in demonstrate that strained relationships in youth

SGM Intimate Relationships stigmatization and violence inflicted on trans-

References gay and lesbian married couples. Journal of Homo-

33(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591- Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohab-

72(1), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- Issues, 37(15), 2189–2212. https://doi.org/10

You might also like