Issues related to gender, sexual identity and sexual orientation can be very complex for individuals, couples and families. For many people, young and old, negotiating gender and sexual identity may be very stressful and psychologically burdensome. The rise of globalization and advances in travel technology and communications, have resulted in increased human interaction all around the world (Silva, Campbell, & Wright, 2012). This heightened global exposure and awareness, has been a catalyst in further awakening society to more cultural diversity and openness regarding affection relationships, and has emboldened the LGBTQ community to open-up about their true selves, more than in any other time in human history. In this paper, I will discuss the gaps that I found in LGBTQ research literature, beginning with Queer individuals’ separation and couples’ divorce. The impact of the American courts on LBGTQ couples’ marriage dissolution, child custody, visitation and the rights of Gay fathers; Poverty rates among African American same-sex couples and LGBTQ children of color; The rate of poverty, homelessness and violence faced by African American Trans youth of color; The inequities and clinical challenges that exist within Queer interracial couple marriages, when one partner is White; and the effects and challenges of colorism among lesbian women of color in establishing same-sex households with children. Finally, I will conclude my paper with a general discussion on the paucity of research on the importance of intersectionality theory on LGBTQ studies.
The Impact of The American Courts on LBGTQ Couples’ Marriage Dissolution, Child Custody, Visitation and The Rights of Gay Fathers
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court delivered their decision in Windsor v. United States (June 2013), regarding same-sex marriage. The Windsor legal ruling was followed by the Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) decision addressing the issue of same-sex marriage equality. In 2013 there was an estimated 230,000 same-sex couples married in the U.S., 21% of all same-sex couples. By the time of the Obergefell decision in June 2015, 390,000 same-sex couples were married, 38% of all same-sex couples. Merely four months later, in October 2015, the number of same sex marriage in the U.S. had ballooned to 486,000, accounting for 45% or almost half of all same-sex couples in America (Tankard & Paluck, 2017). But the advent of legal recognition and benefits of same-sex marriage did not come with all the same rights and guarantees concomitant with heterosexual marriages, such as shared child custody and visitation in the case of a divorce, or the presumption of equal parental rights of a child born or adopted into the marital union. In short, the courts recognized same-sex unions, but there was no marriage equality. There has been a lack of attention in same-sex marriage research in the areas of separation and dissolution experiences of LGBTQ couples (Tasker, 2016). Further empirical research, clinical studies, and advocacy is needed on the legal impacts of separation and divorce on the well-being of LGBTQ parents and their children in light of the U.S. Supreme Court same-sex marriage rulings.
Even as LGBTQ parents gradually gain momentum in being granted custody and visitation rights of their children, more often than not, the courts apply “the nexus test” in cases where custody or visitation is disputed. In the nexus test, courts are not permitted, in theory, to take a parent’s sexual orientation into consideration unless there is a risk of harm to the child; while this is a step in the right direction, this “blind” question of harm is not applied to heterosexual parents in divorce proceedings, only to homosexual parents, and particularly where gay fathers are involved (Pearson, 2012). In the 1990s advocacy groups were able to point to research affirming the wellbeing of children brought up in lesbian led households after the lesbian mother and the child’s father divorced. Today, far less research such research has been done concerning divorced gay fathers, as was done for lesbian mothers. The field of research awaits studies that consider the struggles, challenges and victories of gay fathers’ parenting post-heterosexual divorce (Tasker, 2013).
Poverty Rates Among African American Same-Sex Couples and LGBTQ Children of Color
By all accounts, African American same-sex couples and LGBTQ children of color seem to be the new poverty class in America. LGBTQ individuals and same-sex families with children face greater economic challenges than their non-LGBTQ counterparts (Gates, 2013). According to his research, Gates (2013) documented that unmarried LGBTQ adults with children are three times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to report household incomes near the poverty threshold. To expound further, one of the most salient factors likely to contribute to the economic disadvantages of same-sex couples with children, is that they are Black. According to Gates, (2013), the data shows that poverty rates among LGBTQ children is twice those of children of heterosexual parents, and for people of color, including women and their children, along with those categorized as unaccompanied youth, they now comprise of the majority of people experiencing homelessness (Wright, 2009). Notably, in America LGBTQ youth are disproportionately among the youth homelessness population (Durso & Gates, 2012). Although there is admittedly, a fair amount of research detailing LGBTQ youth and family poverty and homelessness, the bulk of these studies are based on White queer community members, and not the subclass of Black LGBTQ individuals, couples and children. More academic and clinical research needs to be done on the intersectionality of this issue, and the related psychological effects on these marginalized individuals, children, and families.
The Rate of Poverty, Homelessness and Violence Faced by African American Trans Youth of Color
Closely related to the issue of general poverty and homelessness of LGBTQ community members, as identified above, but substantively different and nuanced, is the matter of poverty, homelessness and violence faced by African American Transgender and Transexual youth of color. In the wake of the George Floyd protests during the summer of 2020, it was disheartening to see on television and read reports of “Black Trans” being violently attacked within a “Black Lives Matter” demonstration. Such was a blatant contradiction. These occurrences, when added to the daily acts of micro and meso-aggressions suffered by trans youth, are more frequent than reports suggest. There is a vacuum in the research exploring the lived experiences of trans youth of color, and as such, there is a significant need to explore studies that focuses on trans youth in communities of color (Blumer et al., 2012).
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness (2012), family reunification is the primary solution in the fight to end trans youth homelessness, which is often a contributing factor in Black trans youth violence. Further research into family rejection narratives may offer answers to why trans youth of color, in particular, and LGBQ youth in general, are inherently subjected to heighten prejudice and experience homelessness, poverty, and violence at disproportional rates from Whites (Page, 2017). Future research of LGBTQ youth who experience rejection and homelessness, compared to other LGBTQ youth who experienced rejection but not homelessness is also needed to evaluate how homophobia and transphobia work within different family environments.
The Inequities and Clinical Challenges That Exist Within Queer Interracial Couple Marriages, When One Partner is White
The intersectionality of race, ethnicity, culture or national origin are not new variables that challenge marriages, whether the marriage is heterosexual or homosexual. Intersectionality theory that considers race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, gender identity and sexual orientation, needs to be made part of the conversation when discussing the existing frameworks of same-sex couples and family counseling. Until now, these critical conversations were often cloaked with monocultural and heteronormative assumptions; rendering any other multicultural identity invisible. Intercultural same-sex partners, where one of the partners is White and a member of the privileged dominant class, offers unique insights into relationship power dynamics, unaddressed by the dearth of LGBTQ scholarship literature. There are significant gaps in the research that addresses LGBTQ couple and family interventions for interracial couples, and relationship struggles and challenges, when they intersect with race, economics and, the power dynamic inherent with the White privilege status of one partner (see: Sullivan & Cottone, 2006; Few-Demo, 2014).
The Effects and Challenges of Colorism Among Lesbian Women of Color in Establishing Same-Sex Households with Children
The is a scarcity of studies that have critically examined the effects of internalized systemic racism in LGBTQ women of color. Of particular interest to me, was a study I read that addressed the issue of colorism raised by one of the research subjects. As she prepared for artificial insemination, the queer woman of color wanted to ensure that her child was not born “too Black” and to mitigate the possibility, she went to great lengths to seek out mixed race sperm donor candidates who were “light skinned” instead of dark complexioned (Karpman et al., 2018). The intersectionality of race, ethnicity, and the Black stigmatized subculture of “colorism,” played an important role of how this woman envisioned the phenotype multicultural characteristics of her unborn child/children. She seemed to hate her own Blackness. The systemic internalized stigmatism of race often drives people of color to negotiate their racial identities based on the axis of White power and privilege assimilation. In America, women of color, queer or otherwise, understand that the closer to White you are, is the closer to right you are. In other words, an individual has a better chance at a successful life, if he/she/they/them physically resemble the White dominant heteronormative class. The notion that if you look White in America, you gain greater access to more social and economic advantages, is a generally acknowledged fact among African Americans, and is a subject worthy of further research and exploration.
A Brief Discussion of Intersectionality Theory on LGBTQ Studies
Intersectionality theory recognizes the multiple interlocking identities that any one individual or group might possess. And although there has been an impressive amount of work done to raise the alarm of intersectionality for clinicians, researchers and academicians to always consider it in their work, much still need to be done. By exploring interrelated dimensions of gender: lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, sexual orientation, affectional identity, ability status, spirituality, social class, regional origin, racial/ethnic identities and related experiences, intersectionality expands diversity (Smooth, 2013). Intersectionality does not rotate on a single axis, but thrives on a cornucopia of defining features. The criticality of the theory is that it forces the interrogation of the interrelated nature of overlapping forms of oppression (Corlett & Mavin, 2014) emanating from each defining identity. However, future research is needed to consider the implications of a one‐size‐fits-all approach to intersectionality. Questions such as: what contextual factors make distinctions between various forms of “isms” more or less clear, or salient? Are there more controlling intersecting features than others? Are there/should there be a set of “leading” interlocking identities, as opposed to less important ones? Should there be a “value or impact scale” of intersecting identities? How are gender and racial/ethnic identities operationalized? (Parent et al., 2013). These are all questions propounded which beg answers of future research.
References
Blumer, M. L., Green, M. S., Knowles, S. J., & Williams, A. (2012). Shedding light on thirteen
years of darkness: Content analysis of articles pertaining to transgender issues in
marriage/couple and family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38,
244-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00317.x
Corlett, S., & Mavin, S. (2014). Intersectionality, identity and identity work: Shared tenets and
future research agendas for gender and identity studies. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 29, 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-12-2013-0138
Durso, L. E., & Gates, G. J. (2012). Serving our youth: Findings from a national survey of
services providers working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth who are
homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Williams Institute.
Few‐Demo, A. L. (2014). Intersectionality as the “new” critical approach in feminist family
studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family
Theory & Review, 6(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12039
Gates, G. J. (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2012). An emerging framework for ending
unaccompanied youth homelessness. Author.
Page, M. (2017). Forgotten youth: Homeless LGBT youth of color and the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 12(2), 17–45.
Parent, M. C., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2013). Approaches to research on intersectionality:
Perspectives on gender, LGBT, and racial/ethnic identities. Sex roles, 68(11), 639-645.
Pearson, K. H. (2012). Sexuality in child custody decisions. Family Court Review, 50(2), 280-
288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01451.x
Silva, L. C., Campbell, K., & Wright, D. W. (2012). Intercultural relationships: Entry,
adjustment, and cultural negotiations. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43, 857–
870. https://doi.org/10.2307/41756274
Smooth, W. G. (2013). Intersectionality from theoretical framework to policy intervention.
In Situating intersectionality (pp. 11-41). Palgrave Macmillan.
Sullivan, C., & Cottone, R. R. (2006). Culturally based couple therapy and intercultural
relationships: A review of the literature. Family Journal, 14, 221–225.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (6th
ed.). Wiley.
Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2017). The effect of a Supreme Court decision regarding gay
marriage on social norms and personal attitudes. Psychological science, 28(9), 1334-
1344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617709594
Tasker, F. (2016). Divorce and separation, historical perspective on. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), The
SAGE encyclopedia of LGBTQ studies (Vol. 1, pp. 332-335). SAGE.
Tasker, F. (2013). Lesbian and gay parenting post-heterosexual divorce and separation. In LGBT-
parent families (pp. 3-20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_1
Wright, J. D. (2009). Address unknown: The homeless in America. Aldine Transaction.