566638
research-article2015
JFIXXX10.1177/0192513X14566638Journal of Family IssuesReczek
Article
Parental Disapproval
and Gay and Lesbian
Relationship Quality
Journal of Family Issues
1­–24
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X14566638
jfi.sagepub.com
Corinne Reczek1
Abstract
Parental disapproval of a different-sex romantic relationship is associated
with reduced relationship quality and stability. However, little is known
about how disapproval from parents matters for gay and lesbian relationship
quality and stability. This article examines how 60 adults in gay and lesbian
relationships understand and negotiate parental disapproval. Findings
reveal three main ways parental disapproval is perceived to matter for
the quality of gay and lesbian relationships. First, respondents describe
experiencing increased relationship strain. Second, disapproval from parents
is understood as promoting relationship resilience. Third, respondents
separate themselves from parents to protect and bolster their relationship
quality. In conversation with previous work on different-sex relationships,
findings suggest that gay and lesbian adults perceive and negotiate strain from
parents in ways that are both similar to, but also unique from, different-sex
contexts. The implications for theory and research on intimate relationship
quality in the context of family of origin relationships are discussed.
Keywords
cohabitation/informal marriages, dyadic relationship/quality/satisfaction,
intimate relationships, LGBTQ issues, parent/child relations, qualitative,
same-sex relationships
1The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Corinne Reczek, The Ohio State University, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
2
Journal of Family Issues 
Parent–child ties exist throughout the life course with significant consequence for both generations (Knoester, 2003; Thornton, Orbuch, & Axinn,
1995; Videon, 2005). A body of work shows that relationships with parents
have significant effects on adult children’s marital quality (Reczek, Liu, &
Umberson, 2010). For example, strained relationships with parents and
parental disapproval for a partner choice are disruptive to adult marital quality and contribute to marital strain and dissolution (Bryant, Conger, &
Meehan, 2001). However, the demonstrated importance of the parent–child
tie on marital quality has been shown nearly exclusively among different-sex
unions. Gay men and lesbians experience less overall support from parents
than heterosexuals (Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004), with intergenerational relationships often typified as tenuous or outright hostile due to an
adult child’s gay or lesbian identity or relationship (LaSala, 2000; Todosijevic,
Reczek, 2014b; Rothblum, & Solomon, 2005). Moreover, researchers suggest that a “lack of family support for one’s primary close relationship is
often viewed as a unique stressor for gay men and lesbians” (Kurdek, 2005,
p. 252), and external stressors are clearly shown to undermine relationship
quality (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
The consequences of parent–child strain and parental disapproval on gay
and lesbian relationship quality is unclear. Most notably, this body of work
has not examined whether—and if so how—adult children and their partners
conceptualize conflict with and disapproval from parents as impacting their
intimate relationship quality. In order to fill this gap, this study analyzes 60
individual in-depth interviews with partners in 30 gay and lesbian couples to
examine how disapproval of a same-sex relationship shapes gay or lesbian
relationship quality. The accounts of both partners regarding relationships
with their own parents and their partners’ parents (i.e., “in-laws”1) are analyzed to provide a multifaceted analysis.
Background
The Parent–Child Tie and Different-Sex Relationships
Most adult children have supportive relationships with and report feeling
loved and cared for by parents—a state known as intergenerational solidarity
(for a review, see Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). Intergenerational solidarity
is linked to enhanced marital quality among adult children (Burger & Milardo,
1995; Reczek et al., 2010). Yet recent studies demonstrate that conflict and
stress in relationships with parents also influences romantic relationship
quality (Bengtson, Giarrusso, Mabry, & Silverstein, 2002). For example,
recent longitudinal studies show that strained relationships with parents and
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
3
Reczek
in-laws are associated with increased marital strain and deceased marital satisfaction (Bryant et al., 2001; Reczek et al., 2010). These studies suggest that
strained parent–child and in-law ties create a source of stress and psychological distress among adults, which is in turn associated with relationship stress
and dissolution (Neff & Karney, 2004; Umberson, Williams, Powers, Chen,
& Campbell, 2005). Strain in the parent–child tie may be co-occurring with
solidarity—a concept known as intergenerational ambivalence (Connidis &
McMullin, 2002; Lűscher, 2011; Luescher & Pillemer, 1998). Intergenerational
ambivalence may also matter for adult relationship quality, as feeling support
from parents while simultaneously experiencing conflict with parents may be
either buffer or exacerbate the effects of conflict on adult children’s relationship quality. However, few studies examine this possibility.
Previous research focuses on general strain in the parent–child tie and
children’s marital quality, yet a small body of research moves beyond a measure of general strain to examine parents’ specific disapproval of an intimate
tie (Agnew, Loving, & Drigotas, 2001; Knobloch & Donovan-Kicken, 2006;
Loving, 2006; Parks, 2007; Sinclair & Wright, 2009; Sprecher, Felmlee,
Orbuch, & Willetts, 2002). The majority of work in this area shows that parent approval for a romantic tie increases romantic stability and satisfaction,
while disapproval decreases satisfaction and stability (Sprecher & Felmlee,
2000), likely because positive appraisals increase, and negative appraisals
decrease, satisfaction and confidence in one’s romantic relationship decision.
Research focused on how disapproval affects the stability of romantic ties in
adolescence suggests that disapproval from family members results in a
“Romeo and Juliet effect,” wherein disapproval bolsters resolve to continue
the romantic relationship. For example, in their classic study, Driscoll, Davis,
and Lipetz (1972) found that parental interference in an adolescent love relationship intensifies the nature of the intimate relationship (also see Felmlee,
2001; Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000). Few current studies replicate this finding
among adults, but some research suggests that disapproval from parents and
other network members has little effect on the likelihood of relationship dissolution (Blair & Holmberg, 2008).
The Parent–Child Tie and Gay and Lesbian Relationships
Participation in a gay or lesbian relationship is a unique social stressor (Laird,
1996; LaSala, 2000; Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006). The disclosure
of a gay or lesbian relationship or identity is often met with immediate, and
in some cases long-term, parental rejection (Laird & Green, 1996; Reczek,
2014b). Although parents may disapprove of a child’s intimate relationship
because of characteristics of the partner (e.g., type of occupation, personality
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
4
Journal of Family Issues 
traits), research suggests that disapproval and strain between gay and lesbian
children and their parents emerges as a result of the fundamental structure
and form of a stigmatized sexual identity and partnership (Reczek, 2014b;
Weston, 1991). These broader institutional forces of homophobia and heterosexism that structure the family relationships of gay and lesbian adults likely
precipitate conflict between parents and children. Moreover, even in the face
of heterosexism, homophobia, and conflict gay and lesbian adults tend to
maintain at least some dimensions of solidarity with parents; therefore, gay
and lesbian relationships are likely a key site of intergenerational ambivalence (Cohler, 2004; Connidis, 2003, 2012). In turn, there are likely consequences of simultaneous support and strain in the parent–child tie (i.e.,
ambivalence) on gay and lesbian relationship quality (Ocobock, 2013;
Rostosky et al., 2004), although this has yet to be fully explored.
The vast majority of work on gay and lesbian intergenerational ties and
intimate relationship quality focuses on whether disclosing versus not disclosing a gay or lesbian relationship to parents matters for relationship quality (LaSala, 2000; Oswald, 2002). This body of research shows that being
closeted is associated with increased relationship stress and lower levels of
relationship quality (LaSala, 1998), whereas being out to parents is associated with relationship satisfaction regardless of parents’ level of disapproval
(Caron & Ulin, 1997; LaSala, 1997, 1998). It may be that being “out” to
parents is an affirmation of, and increases commitment in, a gay or lesbian
relationship (Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008; Herek,
2002; LaSala, 2000); being out to parents may also be the result of more
positive parent–child relationship quality, or be the result of an unavoidable
and unintended disclosure. In contrast, however, one longitudinal study on
lesbian couples showed no significant relationship between disclosure to
parents and relationship satisfaction or stability (Green, Bettinger, & Zacks,
1996).
Disclosure of sexual identity is a central component of the relationship
between strain with parents and adults’ relationship quality, yet a more general set of questions regarding how disapproval from parents matters for gay
and lesbian relationship quality have not been addressed. Quantitative studies
show that approval of a gay or lesbian relationship appears to be clearly associated with positive relationship well-being and reduced relationship stress
(Blair & Holmberg, 2008; Knoble & Linville, 2012), whereas parental strain
and disownment adversely affect gay or lesbian relationship quality
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Caron & Ulin, 1997). Although these studies
reveal general associations between the intergenerational tie and relationship
quality, the reliance on survey data and quantitative measures of the parent–
child tie and relationship quality cannot assess central meaning-making
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
5
Reczek
processes and mechanisms through which the effects of parental disapproval
shape gay and lesbian relationship quality.
Recent qualitative studies have begun to address the relationship between
strain with parents and gay and lesbian relationship quality. Ocobock (2013)
observes gay and lesbian couples’ transition to marriage, demonstrating how
marriage solidifies and heightens family of origin support or rejection of the
intimate relationship. However, Ocobock does not explicitly demonstrate the
consequences of such rejection on the quality and stability of the gay or lesbian partnership (also see LaSala, 2000). In a qualitative study that more
directly examines the effect of family support and strain on relationship quality, Rostosky et al. (2004) provide a descriptive account of how support,
strain, and ambivalence from family of origin members are experienced
within a partnership. This study shows that anger and hurt are commonly
experienced by an adult child or their partner when family members demonstrate disapproval, and that gay and lesbian individuals respond to this rejection by renegotiating tighter boundaries around the couple and by highlighting
the couples’ resilience. While this study is foundational, the authors focus on
the use of psychotherapeutic intervention to cope with intergenerational
strain, are unable to outline “typical” response strategies, and do not articulate how partners negotiate their relationship in the face of strain over time.
Taken together, this body of work has not empirically revealed the processes
through which individuals in intact gay and lesbian relationships understand,
negotiate, and survive disapproval from and strain with parents. The present
study aims to fill this gap.
Method
The present study analyzes 60 qualitative in-depth interviews conducted with
30 lesbian-identified women and 30 gay-identified men in intimate relationships self-defined as committed for 7 years or longer. Both members of a
couple were interviewed separately to obtain independent accounts (Sechrist,
Suitor, Vargas, & Pillemer, 2011). With institutional review board approval
and informed consent given, each interview took place in a midsized southwestern city, was recorded, professionally transcribed, and lasted 1 to 2 hours.
Respondents were recruited through a variety of methods including distribution of flyers at local coffee shops and in gay and lesbian community bulletins, a booth at the annual gay and lesbian pride event, informal talks at local
gay and lesbian community groups (e.g., churches, gay and lesbian social
groups, and community organizations), and the posting of study information
on gay and lesbian community e-mail listserv (e.g., local gay men’s chorus).
Additionally, word-of-mouth snowball sampling was utilized. The interviews
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
6
Journal of Family Issues 
took place between 2006 and 2007 in respondent homes and university
offices. The main purpose of the interview was to obtain narratives on longterm relationship dynamics; topics included relationship quality and satisfaction, relationships with parents and other family of origin members, and
mental and physical health. The sample was restricted to couples together 7
years or longer because the goal of the project was to capture the dynamics of
committed relationships; the highest risk of dissolution is in the first 7 years
of a relationship (Kreider & Ellis, 2011).
Participants
Nineteen (62%) respondents were White, eight were Hispanic, Latino, or
Latina (4%), one was Black, one was Native American/Hispanic, and one
was South American. Household income ranged from $40,000 to $120,000.
The average age was 49 years for gay men and 43 years for lesbian women;
average relationship duration for gay couples was 21 years and 14 years for
lesbian couples. Occupations widely varied across the sample from teacher,
social worker, hairstylist, legal assistant, sales consultant, and firefighter to
attorney, architect, and computer analyst. Notably, while demographic characteristics are similar to some population-based estimates (Gates & Ost,
2004; Lau, 2012; also see Gates & Newport, 2012), this sample is not generalizable as it is not drawn from a nationally representative sample. Uniform
demographic information about respondents’ parents (e.g., age) was not
obtained because the interview focused on adult children’s interpretations of
the parent–child tie; however, interview data and general population estimates place parents between approximately 60 and 90 years old; about one
seventh of parents were deceased at the time of the interview. Respondents
with (a) deceased parent(s) may experience recall bias, describing parents
either in more positive or negative ways than they would if the parent was
still alive; especially if those whose parent(s) are recently deceased
(Higginson, Priest, & McCarthy, 1994).
Measures
A semistructured interview guide facilitated in-depth discussion. The present
analysis is focused on responses to several open-ended questions in the interview guide, most centrally: “What is your/your partner’s relationship like with
your/your partner’s parents?” and “Are you ‘out’ to your/your partner’s parents? If so, tell me that story; if not, why not?” Other structured interview questions relevant to the current study included: “Tell me about times when your/
your partner’s family had a positive/negative effect on your partnership,” and,
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
7
Reczek
“Has being with your partner had an impact on your relationship with your
family?” A series of follow-up questions elicited in-depth accounts. For example, if a respondent said that he does not speak to his mother frequently, the
interviewer would follow-up to ask, “Why not? When was the last time you
spoke? What was the conversation like?” or “How do you feel about not talking
to your mom frequently.” Notably, about one quarter of respondents have not
discussed their gay/lesbian identity directly with at least one parent. However,
these respondents believe parents are aware of their relationship.
Analysis
All interviews were independently analyzed by the author using a standardized method of inductive data analysis that emphasizes the dynamic construction of codes for the purpose of developing analytical and theoretical
interpretations of data. NVivo qualitative software was used to house the data
only; no NVivo programs were run to code the data. This approach is part of
a standardized qualitative methodology that draws on interpretivist and constructionist epistemology; the systematic and rigorous interpretation of conceptual findings by one data analyst is a highly reliable and valid approach to
qualitative research (Esterberg, 2002). The author used inductive reasoning
to guide the analysis, identifying patterns and conceptual categories as they
emerged from the transcripts. In line with a standard approach to qualitative
data analysis, the author read the transcripts multiple times to ensure understanding of the content of the interviews; thereafter, the author took a threestep coding process. First, the author conducted line-by-line, data-driven
categorization in order to summarize each piece of data as it related to the
relationship between adult children and their parents/parents-in-law. Next,
the author performed “focused” coding to develop categories regarding adult
children’s perceptions of the parent/in-law child tie by connecting initial lineby-line codes together for conceptual purposes. In the final stage of analysis,
the author created conceptual memos to develop categories and subcategories
that related to one another on a theoretical level; themes formed in this final
stage are discussed below.
Results
Respondents reveal three primary ways disapproval from parents shapes the
quality of gay and lesbian relationships. First, respondents describe increased
individual and relationship strain. Second, respondents suggest that disapproval or strain with parents prompted relationship resilience. Third, respondents deploy separation techniques in the face of strain with parents to protect
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
8
Journal of Family Issues 
and bolster relationship quality. It was common for respondents to describe
different parents (e.g., mother, father, stepparent, parent-in-law), and sometimes the same parent, in more than one theme below. Therefore, the themes
are not mutually exclusive but reflect the range of responses found in the
analysis.
Parental Disapproval and Relationship Strain
A majority of respondents (44 out of 60) describe that disapproval from one
of their own, or their partner’s parents generated strain in their gay or lesbian
relationship. According to respondents, this occurs in two ways: (a) disapproval directly increases relationship strain and (b) the “glass closet” creates
relationship conflict.
Disapproval Directly Increases Relationship Strain. Respondents describe that
disapproval from parents was related to increased stress in their relationship.
For some, disapproval from a parent creates yet another life stressor that the
couple needs to cope with. Danielle describes an event when her partner
Gretchen’s mother came to visit at the birth of their daughter. At first, Gretchen’s mother did not discuss their lesbian relationship. But, when she saw
Gretchen and Danielle kissing in the kitchen,
Woman goes crazy, she was awful. It was so stressful. [Gretchen] finally threw
her out of the house. It got ugly. So, that was a little stressful. And as soon as
she got back home, she sent Gretchen her amended will, writing her out of it. It
was hurtful. Really hurtful. And so, for just having been together for a few
months. It was a bit stressful.
Gretchen and Danielle both suggest in their own interviews that Gretchen’s
mother disowned Gretchen due to her lesbian relationship. Respondents not
only described acute accounts of strain but also focused on how multiple years
of a strained parent–child relationship matter for relationship quality. Gretchen
talks about the same event but also discusses how after this event her mother
became a chronic strain resulting from Gretchen being in a lesbian relationship.
When her mother died Gretchen describes feeling relief: “[we no longer had to]
to worry about whether she was going to do anymore freak-outs. That was calming in that effect . . . Just not having to worry about that has been kind of a
relief.” This account demonstrates that her mother’s rejection of Gretchen’s lesbian relationship promoted stress in her relationship—both acute and chronic.
Similarly, Adam describes how his partner’s mother has a negative effect on
their relationship because she is an additional source of disagreement:
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
9
Reczek
Today I never talk to his Mom. I never see his Mom. We have issues about his
Mother . . . that is the argument that we had last night was about me seeing his
mom. And so the family thing is a major aspect of it [conflict] between us.
Adam suggests strain with his mother is an added layer of life stress and conflict, which has implications for relationship quality.
Other respondents describe how disapproval from a parent or in-law
directly causes stress for one member of a couple, which in turn causes relationship strain. Melissa describes general, chronic disapproval of her relationship from her own mother. She discusses how this disapproval hurts her
partner deeply, and it is this hurt that creates relationship strain:
[t]here was asecond class treatment. She would always call my brothers-in-law
on their birthdays, but she didn’t always call Kristen on her birthday. There was
definitely some discrepancies. I know that being gay is not want parents dream
of, but when it happens, it seems to me that you are going to almost go out of
the way to make them feel welcome. And my mother just wasn’t emotionally
capable of doing that. … It wasn’t this warmth, “Oh you are my wonderful
daughter-in-law Either.” …. It affected our relationship, very much so. I think
that I felt very sad that Kristen felt saddened by being treated less than my
brothers-in-law. I felt sad for that. But it saddened me for her, because she
deserves just great stuff.
Similarly, other respondents describe how disapproval from a parent creates relationship strain when partners cope with said strain in different ways.
Aidan describes how both he and his partner Max have different mechanisms
to cope with his partner’s parents’ chronic rejection; this in turn creates additional strain:
Max deals with it on an intellectual level where I’m the one that acts it out. But
he can rationalize what turmoil is going on, “eventually, we’ll get through
this.” I’m sure it’s very hard on him, but he can intellectually rationalize, “okay,
this is what’s going on, and the pattern is shit was said,” he pouts, and things
are better. When I’m going through it, “This is never going to end!” I forget
each time that it does end. So he is this rock that is like, “okay, it’s going to be
ok.” But if he tells me it’s going to get better, I don’t want to hear that.
Respondents like Aidan and his partner respond to the disapproval and strain
caused by a rejecting parent individually, but also relationally, with both partners utilizing different coping mechanisms. These differing responses to
stress in turn reduce relationship quality. This theme reveals how disapproval
from parents and parents-in-law create direct relationship strain as well as
individual-level stress that affects relationship quality in detrimental ways.
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
10
Journal of Family Issues 
The “Glass Closet” and Intimate Relationship Conflict. Sedgwick (1990) uses the
term “glass closet” to refer to the “open secret” of a person’s sexual identity.
Individuals in the glass closet are those not officially “out” yet whom others
read as having a gay or lesbian identity via various social markers of their
sexual identity—in the case of this study, a gay or lesbian relationship. About
a quarter of the sample had not officially discussed their romantic tie or their
sexual identity with at least one of their own or their partners’ parents because
they feared parental disapproval and rejection. However, at the same time,
respondents believed that their parents knew about this relationship and identity (i.e., the glass closet). This liminal in-between status often was described
as generating conflict in gay and lesbian relationships. Christopher describes
how living in the glass closet with his partner’s parents created stress with
Raymond:
His family, for years, didn’t want to see that. Originally, it was like, I am not
going to tell them anything. He was like, “Well, I know my dad couldn’t take
it. So I am just not going to come out to them.” It affected the relationship, it
was rough. I didn’t like it and I feel really bad about it . . . and I said, “I need
you to be upfront and honest with your family.”
Like Christopher, Elliott describes how his being in the glass closet was detrimental to his and his partner Spencer’s relationship:
The thing that affected us largely during that time was that I was not out to my
parents, and that caused a lot of conflict in the relationship. And that was very,
very difficult. I didn’t come out to them until we’d been together 7 years. It was
very frustrating to Spencer because he had to be hidden. He was the roommate.
We had to go through the two rooms, and all that stuff, which now I just [think]
how embarrassing . . . That definitely caused a big strain. He’d get very upset
about it and rightfully so. They knew forever. But I truly couldn’t cross it. So
that was a huge point of conflict. I don’t recall it ever being a therefore-we’renot-going-to-be-together conflict. But a lot of pain.
For Christopher and Elliott, the inability to openly live in their relationships
due to fear of rejection from parents created relationship quality decline and
conflict.
The glass closet is related to conflict serious enough to end a relationship.
When discussing a previous relationship, Ann describes how being in the
glass closet caused relationship dissolution:
I came out to my parents during the first year. I promised myself, because one
of the complaints my last girlfriend had was I never spent holidays with her or
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
11
Reczek
her family . . . and it’s because I wasn’t out. And so I promised myself the next
time I was going to tell my parents.
Diana also describes how this liminal space of the glass closet nearly ended
their relationship:
The biggest time was at the very beginning when we were struggling and not
quite being open with everybody and trying to figure out what we were going
to do. And whether we were going to continue or not continue. So not telling
people what is going on in your life, that you are having this huge stress, so that
was probably the very worst time.
Echoing Ann and Diana, Angela and Carol broke up twice because Carol
refused to tell her family about their relationship. Angela says:
Her family didn’t know. That seemed to be the cause of why she had to leave
the relationship we were trying to build. The first [break-up] . . . there was just
a lot of resentment that she was hiding me from her family. And we kind of had
two separate lives. It bothered me when she would go to her side and wouldn’t
involve me and I could never be a part of it. And so I did feel threatened. And I
would get angry. The second break up, she did it again, because she was
struggling internally. She was thinking to herself, “I have to leave this. I can’t
be gay. It is too hard. My family will never accept me.” So she really did try to
push me away. But when she came out to her family and told them about me
. . . 2 years ago, that kind of gave way to validating our relationship as a married
couple and not just friends or roommates. And that helped a lot.
Angela suggests that Carol’s fear of rejection from her parents and other family members created intense conflict. This conflict was alleviated when Carol
disclosed her relationship to her family; Angela suggests this increased their
relationship quality. Carol also recounts how this time in the glass closet had
detrimental effects on her relationship with Angela:
[My parents] sort of knew, but we didn’t really talk about it. It was one of those
very hush, hush things. Over the whole time of our relationship probably the
most stressful thing I have ever dealt with. Because they had made comments,
like “If we ever find out something is going on, we are going to take [my child]
away.” So that affected our relationship in a lot of ways.
Not being officially “out” to family members is clearly linked to conflict
and strain in the gay or lesbian relationship by virtue of hiding a connection,
lack of sharing of family events and life events, and increased relational stress
when having to work to hide a gay or lesbian relationship. However, the glass
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
12
Journal of Family Issues 
closet was also a shaming object that by design denigrated the romantic relationship. Stanley recounts how staying in the glass closet hurt his relationship
because it meant that he viewed his relationship as a shameful secret:
David and I were together for 6 years before I told [my parents]. We had an
extra room in the house that we set up, and we told my family it was my room
and that type of stuff. We broke up. Shortly after we got back together, I had
decided to suck it up and I told my family. I think just the general acceptance
and the way that they have openly accepted him and for us to not have to hide
it at all. Probably after that I realized how much hiding it makes it something
you are ashamed of. It definitely impacts your relationship when it is something
you are trying to hide. So when we didn’t have to do that anymore it helped.
A lack of disclosure due to the glass closet created direct conflict about being
“out,” linked to perceptions of shame and an inability to demonstrate commitment to one’s partner. Respondents believed that their inability to disclose
their relationship increased relationship conflict; this conflict was often
accepted as inevitable in the face of homophobic parental relationships.
Parental Disapproval and Resilience
A large minority (18) of respondents described how disapproval from one or
more parent enhanced and strengthened their relationship with their partner.
For many respondents, disapproval was seen as relationship enhancing
because it allowed for the development and strengthening of relationship
skills. Jody illustrates this theme:
Early on the [disapproval] increased our alliance to a certain extent because she
needed an ally and she had this family that was acting like an enemy. I have had
to learn the ways to respond to Elaine that are most supportive to her. Letting her
be angry and sad for periods of time, not having to make it better without having
to talk about anything. It was high stress, which makes it harder to just relax. But
it also brought us closer. And forced us to be a team and come up with strategies,
probably much more quickly than if those factors hadn’t been involved.
Similarly, Kevin describes how his strained relationship with his parents
facilitated the development of relationship skills and closeness between him
and his partner Edwin:
[My parents and I] don’t communicate a lot or see each other a lot. Edwin has
been real understanding. I know he is aware of how much I’ve struggled with
it in trying to figure out what to do about all of this . . . When you have to deal
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
13
Reczek
with issues like that, it does . . . bring you closer to someone. You both just kind
of struggle with figuring out what do you do with this and trying to be
understanding with each other.
Other respondents believe that conflict with parents brought them together
because one partner was able to demonstrate support during parent–child
conflict. Elaine, partner of Jody, describes how her parents’ disapproval
allows for the development of relationship skills:
My family is evil. [It] brought us closer together. Made us tighter because she
stood by me. And that is why I will never let her go. She was there. She helped
me. She held me when I was crying. Got in bed and said, “Sweetie, it will be
alright; we will get through this.” She never left.
Similarly, Emilia describes how her partner Diana supported Emilia’s relationship with her parents:
Diana has a positive impact and really supported me not only in coming out to
them, but with the emotions afterwards. And not forcing me, but encouraging
me to try to keep that relationship alive. That was incredible for me. That was
a strength that I felt at the time. Here are these evil, hateful people with her and
she is saying pursue it. [It] has been a strength more than a negative. Just
tension when my parents would call. Because of that tension, I think it has
brought us closer instead of make us have fights.
For these respondents, negotiating the stress of rejection and disapproval
from parents together as a couple demonstrated the strength of the relationship and enhanced their relationship skills. In this way, respondents coming
together to support one another in their relationship in the face of parental
disapproval was a key indicator of the priority of the intimate tie, enhancing
intimate relationship quality.
Parental Disapproval and Parent–Child Separation
A small minority (8) of respondents responded to parental disapproval by
attempting to reduce potentially damaging contact with parents in order to
protect their intimate relationship. Respondents in this theme emphasize that
parents have little or no effect on their relationship because of this purposeful
separation. As a result, these intimate relationships are understood as resilient
but also isolated through emotional and geographical separation. When asked
about how her family’s disapproval has affected her relationship, Ann illustrates this form of purposeful isolation:
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
14
Journal of Family Issues 
We kind of do our own thing, so I’m not sure that they’ve done anything to
impact us. We’ve pretty much protected ourselves from that. We just keep them
at arm’s distance, we always had a hotel room and we always had a car. And we
just had an agreement that we’d leave like if things weren’t going well. And we
did a couple of times. She won’t put up with that for more than a minute.
Gretchen describes her relationship with her disapproving mother above, but
later in her interview Gretchen talks about the ways in which the couple distances themselves from Gretchen’s father to mitigate any potential strain in
their lesbian relationship:
Dad’s wife is a little towards the moral to religious side, so she can’t really
reconcile the concept of us. When you are around her, you get the feeling that
although she’s not saying anything, because she is far too nice to do that, she
would rather not have to deal. Dad is with her. He has got to respect her feelings
more than ours. They won’t stay with us, for instance. When they come down
here, they stay in a hotel.
For others, the glass closet was both preceded by, and is an effect of, emotional and geographic distancing from parents. Donald describes how he and
his partner Tim are in the glass closet and do not outwardly celebrate their
relationship and participate in family events. In response to this, there is emotional distancing from Tim’s mother which protects the relationship:
We would [get legally married]. We would probably have to wait until after his
mother passes, because I don’t know if he really wants to do this overly in front
of her. He says she knows but he doesn’t want to bring it up and do it as an overt
kind of thing. It doesn’t bother me terribly . . . why stir up a hornet’s nest when
it is not really important that they know? He doesn’t interact that much anyway.
Far apart. Not very close.
Donald provides a key illustration of how being in the glass closet is related
to interactions with family members, the ability to be “out,” and the quality
of the relationship. Kevin, introduced above, also keeps Edwin’s family at a
distance due to the glass closet and assumptions of disapproval:
He hasn’t actually said the words to his parents, but he knows they know. His
mother was kind of curious the first couple of times that we went down there,
but doesn’t really ask any questions anymore. We don’t see them very often.
Every 1 to 2 years we get down there. He’s gone a few times without me.
Kevin and his partner do not see Edwin’s parents often because they are not
out to Edwin’s parents. Rather than disapproval causing them stress, Kevin
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
15
Reczek
and Edwin chose to isolate themselves from their family ties to prevent relationship strain. Thus, one way respondents protect their intimate relationships in the fact of potentially rejecting parents is to create emotional and
geographical distance, privileging their intimate relationship and mitigating
negative consequences of parental rejection.
Discussion
Previous research on different-sex relationships demonstrates that both strain
with and disapproval from parents is linked to reduced relationship quality
and stability (Reczek et al., 2010). However, little is known about the consequences of strain with and disapproval from parents on the relationships of
gay and lesbian adults. This study examines how parental and “in-law” disapproval matters for gay and lesbian relationship quality (Kurdek, 2005; LaSala,
2000; Solomon et al., 2004). Findings reveal the ways respondents conceptualize disapproval from parents as both relationship-enhancing and relationship-deterring. In articulating these accounts, respondents provide evidence
for the successful negotiation of relationship quality in the context of strained
parent–child ties. Analyses build on previous work on gay and lesbian families, relationship quality, and intergenerational relationships, to make three
primary contributions to family scholarship.
First, in line with a body of work on different-sex couples (Bryan,
Fitzpatrick, Crawford, & Fischer, 2001; Etcheverry, Le, & Charania, 2008;
Reczek et al., 2010) and a growing body of work on gay and lesbian couples
(Balsam et al., 2008; Herek, 2002; LaSala, 2000) respondents describe that
relationships with disapproving parents and parents-in-law increased either
relationship strain or closeness. Respondents describe how present day and
long-term chronic strain (i.e., accumulation of experiences across the life
course) increased individual psychological distress, which in turn increased
relationship strain; strain with parents also directly initiated conflict the gay or
lesbian relationship (Aquilino, 1997; Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Elder, 1998).
Findings further reveal that disapproval from parents explicitly enhanced relationship quality via respondents’ emphasis on notions of resilience (Driscoll et
al., 1972; Felmlee, 2001; Rostosky et al., 2004; Sprecher, 2011; Sprecher &
Felmlee, 2000). Respondents who articulate relationship enhancement specifically point to increased relationship solidarity—what might be understood
as a Romeo and Romeo or Juliet and Juliet effect wherein external stressors
increase the stability through the conceptualization of a common outside
destructive force (Driscoll et al., 1972). Moreover, respondents describe that
having to cope with strained parent–child ties facilitated greater relationship
skills. Taken together, the finding that parental disapproval is related to both
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
16
Journal of Family Issues 
relationship-enhancing and relationship-deterring consequences has important implications for our understanding of the mechanisms through which gay
and lesbian relationships successfully survive stressful external circumstances.
Future research should examine relationship formation processes and the early
years of relationships to determine how strain with parents may prevent the
solidification of emerging gay and lesbian relationships in these contexts, as
well as explore relationships that have terminated to further understand the
role of parental strain in the ending of a romantic tie.
Second, findings reveal how the consequences of the parent–child tie on
gay and lesbian relationships is a product of structural forces and homophobic discourses around gay and lesbian identity and relationships in the United
States (Taylor, Kimport, Van Dyke, & Andersen, 2009; Weston, 1991). These
broader structural forces buttress adult children’s belief in parents’ disapproval of their relationship; this is the case especially when adult children
have not disclosed their relationship (i.e., the glass closet), even as some
parents do not show overt disapproval. Drawing on the concept of intergenerational ambivalence, results suggest that structural factors produce disapproval from parents whereas normative notions of intergenerational ties
produce least some dimensions of intergenerational solidarity (Cohler, 2004;
Connidis, 2003, 2012). For some, being in the glass closet and experiencing
both support and strain from parents (i.e., ambivalence) creates personal
shame and intimate relationship conflict. Others respond to ambivalent
parental relationships in ways that privilege their gay or lesbian relationship
over the parent–child tie, enhancing intimate relationship quality. Still other
respondents appear to protect their intimate relationship from negativity or
ambivalence via an emphasis on geographic or emotional separation. Notably,
in the context of these broader structural homophobic forces, disclosing one’s
sexual identity and relationship is not a stable, linear process (Diamond,
2000; Serovich, Grafsky, & Craft, 2011). Rather, disclosure of one’s sexual
identity is a continual, context-specific process that involves returns to or
partial entrances out of the closet related to perceptions about potential rejecting and supportive parents (Langdridge, 2008; Seidman, 2004). Importantly,
the operation of the glass closet presented here may be specific to the current
cohort of mid-life to later life individuals. Previous research suggests that
mid- to late-life gay men and lesbians are less likely to disclose their sexual
identity to family members than their younger counterparts (Scherrer, 2010;
Todosijevic et al., 2005); because this sample came of age during the emerging gay rights movement, this dynamic may be relevant to this sample.
Third, this study highlights how separation from parents is an important
strategy that ameliorates the potentially damaging effects of parental strain
and disapproval on relationship quality. For these respondents, strain with
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
17
Reczek
and rejection from parents appears to precipitate the privileging of the gay or
lesbian relationship as the central social relationship via isolation from negative outside parental forces. Isolation is primarily conceptualized as relationship-promoting, however, analytically there are likely negative effects of
separation on individuals, couples, and parent–child relationships. Separation
and isolation from parents and other family of origin members is shown to be
associated with increase psychological distress and worse overall well-being
among heterosexuals (Barnett, Marshall, & Pleck, 1992). Thus, although the
gay or lesbian relationship may be maintained, individual well-being outcomes may suffer. Moreover, in the case of separation, a key source of social
support and solidarity for both generations is lost—these positive dimensions
of the parent–child tie are shown to be central to both generations’ well-being
across the life course (Knoester, 2003; Thornton et al., 1995; Videon, 2005).
Future research should examine the impact of emotionally and geographically distant relationships between parents, children, children’s partners, and
other involved family ties to fully gauge the ecological effects of strain with
parents on overall family well-being. Additionally, separation techniques
may be uniquely useful for individuals in the present study who have socioeconomic resources and mobility; those with fewer socioeconomic resources
may be unable to separate themselves from parents who are disapproving,
with greater consequences on adult children’s relationship quality. Future
research should examine a more socioeconomically diverse sample to explore
this possibility. Moreover, as U.S. society becomes increasingly accepting of
gay and lesbian relationships, rejection from parents may not be as vehement
(Powell, Bolzendahl, Geist, & Steelman, 2010). Thus, this finding may
become less prevalent with younger cohorts; future research should address
this possibility.
Limitations and Conclusion
This study is significant in explaining how adult children view strain and
disapproval in relationships with parents as influencing their gay and lesbian
relationship quality, yet several limitations should be considered. Analyses
are unable to fully articulate the differences between general strain in a parent–child tie that may result from a wide variety of factors and more specific
parental disapproval for a gay or lesbian child’s intimate relationship and
future work should address this. Additionally, analyses rely on the perspectives of adult children; a more comprehensive study would include accounts
from both parents and adult children as adult children’s descriptions may be
reflective of, or perhaps diverge from, the perceptions of parents (Birditt,
Tighe, Fingerman, & Zarit, 2012; Gilligan, Suitor, Kim, & Pillemer, 2013;
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
18
Journal of Family Issues 
Reczek, 2014a; Sechrist et al., 2011). Multiple accounts may be particularly
important when attempting to understand the consequences of these intergenerational exchanges on both generations. The analyses presented here did not
reveal categorical differences between accounts of parents versus “parentsin-law.” This is in line with previous research suggesting that these two types
of intergenerational ties are relatively similar in dimensions of solidarity,
conflict, and ambivalence (e.g., Willson, Kim, Shuey, & Elder, 2003).
However, this also may be a function of the dyadic data that included each
partners’ account of both their own parent and their partner’s parents in overlapping ways. Future research should attempt to tease out how in-law and
parent–child relationships are distinct. Additionally, respondents likely experience gradients in the degree of and salience of conflictual parent–child ties;
one person may experience strain each time they interact with a family member, whereas another may experience strain sparingly. This dynamic is highlighted via intergenerational ambivalence, which suggests that most
relationships have co-occurring dimensions of both support and strain
(Reczek, 2014a; Willson et al., 2003). Delineating the range of experiences of
support, strain, and ambivalence is beyond the scope of the present study, but
is an important area for future research (Fingerman, Pitzer, Lefkowitz, Birditt,
& Mroczek, 2008; Lang, 2004; Pillemer & Lűscher, 2004). The study sample
is largely White with high levels of education and stable professional careers
and findings are not intended to be generalized to other populations. Future
work should explore the parent–adult child dynamic in other socioeconomic
and racial groups. Finally, this is a particular cohort of gay and lesbian adults
in relationships, and it is likely that these findings are unique to this generation. Given rapid changes in the political and social climate in the United
States today, it is likely that other age groups and generations will develop
relationships in very different ways; this is a cite for future research. Future
studies should also explore how other sexual and gender minority groups,
such as bisexuals or transgender individuals, negotiate their romantic relationships in the context of strained parent–child ties.
This study provides one of the first accounts of how strain in the parent–
child tie is linked to perceptions of gay and lesbian relationship quality.
Findings suggest that gay and lesbian adults perceive and negotiate strain
from parents in ways that are both similar to, but also unique from, previous
research findings on different-sex relationships. This study contributes to a
line of research in family studies that explores intimate relationships as influenced by external forces including family relationships (Reczek et al., 2010)
by giving new insight into how gay and lesbian adults conceptualize their
romantic relationship in relation to one aspect of the web of family relationships. The implications for how parents and children concurrently negotiate
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
19
Reczek
both intergenerational and intimate ties remains a central area of both social
life and inquiry, and this study is a step in understanding the specific negotiations of these relationships among gay and lesbian identified adults.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was supported in part
by grant R01AG026613 (Principal Investigator, Debra Umberson) from the
National Insistute on Aging and grant R03HD078754 (Principal Inestigators
Corinne Reczek and Hui Liu) from the Office Of The Director, National Institutes
Of Health and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health &
Human Development.
Note
1.
The term “in-law” is used throughout this article to easily demonstrate the nature
of relationships between an individual and the partner’s family of origin members. Because same-sex marriage is not legal in the state where the study took
place, there is no legal connection between “in-laws.” This term is used for both
ease of discussion and because respondents used this term in their interviews.
References
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the
trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042-1057.
Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 59, 670-686.
Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Threeyear follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex
couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 102-116.
Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1992). Adult son-parent relationships
and their associations with sons’ psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues,
13, 505-525.
Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K.
Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 469-504). New
York, NY: Springer.
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
20
Journal of Family Issues 
Bengtson, V., Giarrusso, R., Mabry, J. B., & Silverstein, M. (2002). Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 568-576.
Birditt, K. S., Tighe, L. A., Fingerman, K. L., & Zarit, S. H. (2012). Intergenerational
relationship quality across three generations. Journals of Gerontology Series B,
67, 627-638.
Blair, K. L., & Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and wellbeing in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 25, 769-791.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York, NY: William
Morrow.
Bryan, L., Fitzpatrick, J., Crawford, D., & Fischer, J. (2001). The role of network
support and interference in women’s perception of romantic, friend, and parental
relationships. Sex Roles, 45, 481-499.
Bryant, C., Conger, R., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on change
in marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614-626.
Burger, E., & Milardo, R. (1995). Marital interdependence and social networks.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 403-415.
Caron, S., & Ulin, M. (1997). Closeting and the quality of lesbian relationships.
Families in Society, 78, 413-419.
Cohler, B. J. (2004). The experience of ambivalence within the family: Young adults
“coming out” gay or lesbian and their parents. In K. Pillemer & K. Lűscher
(Eds.), Intergenerational ambivalences: New perspectives on parent-child
relations in later life (pp. 255-284). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Connidis, I. A. (2003). Bringing outsiders in: Gay and lesbian family ties over the
life course. In S. Arber, K. Davidson, & J. Ginn (Eds.), Gender and ageing:
Changing roles and relationships (pp. 79-94). Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.
Connidis, I. A. (2012). Theoretical directions for studying family ties and aging. In
R. Blieszner & V. Hilkevitch Bedford (Eds.), Handbook on families and aging
(pp. 35-60). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Connidis, I. A., & McMullin, J. A. (2002). Sociological ambivalence and family ties:
A critical perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 558-567.
Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young
sexual-minority women over a 2-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36,
241-250.
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., & Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic
love: The Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
24, 1-10.
Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development,
69, 1-12.
Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., & Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported
social referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence.
Personal Relationships, 15, 281-295.
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
21
Reczek
Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic
stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259-1287.
Fingerman, K. L., Pitzer, L., Lefkowitz, E. S., Birditt, K. S., & Mroczek, D. (2008).
Ambivalent relationship qualities between adults and their parents: Implications
for the well-being of both parties. Journals of Gerontology Series B, 63,
P362-P371.
Gates, G. J., & Newport, F. (2012). Special report: 3.4% of U.S. adults identify as
LGBT. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/specialreport-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx
Gates, G. J., & Ost, J. (2004). Gay and lesbian atlas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Press.
Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., Kim, S., & Pillemer, K. (2013). Differential effects of
perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ favoritism on sibling tension in adulthood.
Journals of Gerontology Series B, 68, 593-598.
Green, R. J., Bettinger, M., & Zacks, E. (1996). Are lesbian couples fused and gay
male couples disengaged? Questioning gender straightjackets. In J. Laird & R. J.
Green (Eds.), Lesbians gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists
(pp. 185-230). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the
United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264-274.
Higginson, I., Priest, P., & McCarthy, M. (1994). Are bereaved family members a
valid proxy for a patient’s assessment of dying? Social Science & Medicine, 38,
553-557.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995).The longitudinal course of marital quality
and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 3-34.
Knoble, N. B., & Linville, D. (2012). Outness and relationship satisfaction in samegender couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 330-339.
Knobloch, L. K., & Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network
members in courtships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Personal
Relationships, 13, 281-302.
Knoester, C. (2003). Transitions in young adulthood and the relationship between
parent and offspring well-being. Social Forces, 81, 1431-1458.
Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and
divorces: 2009 (Current Population Reports). Washington, DC: U.S. Census
Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251-254.
Laird, J. (1996). Invisible ties: Lesbians and their families of origin. In J. Laird &
R. J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families (pp. 89-122). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Laird, J., & Green, R. J. (Eds.). (1996). Lesbians and gays in couples and families.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lang, F. R. (2004). The filial task in midlife: Ambivalence and the quality of adult
children’s relationships with their old-aged parents. In K. Pillemer & K. Lűscher
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
22
Journal of Family Issues 
(Eds.), Intergenerational ambivalences: New perspectives on parent-child
relations in later life (pp. 183-206). West Yorkshire, England: Emerald.
Langdridge, D. (2008). Phenomenology and critical social psychology: Directions
and debates in theory and research. Social & Personality Psychology Compass,
2, 1126-1142.
LaSala, M. C. (1997). The need for thick skin: Coupled gay men and their relationships with their parents and in-laws (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State
University of New York, Albany.
LaSala, M. C. (1998). Coupled gay men, parents, and in-laws: Intergenerational disapproval and the need for thick skin. Families in Society, 79, 585-595.
LaSala, M. C. (2000). Lesbians, gay men, and their parents: Family therapy for the
coming-out crisis. Family Process, 39, 67-81.
Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation,
and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 973-988.
Loving, T. J. (2006). Predicting dating relationship fate with insiders’ and outsiders’ perspective: Who and what is asked matters. Personal Relationships, 13,
349-362.
Lűscher, K. (2011). Ambivalence: A “sensitizing construct” for the study and practice
of intergenerational relationships. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9,
191-206.
Luescher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach
to the study of parent–child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60, 413-425.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context affect intimate relationships?
Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134-148.
Ocobock, A. (2013). The power and limits of marriage: Married gay men’s family
relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 191-205.
Oswald, R. F. (2002). Who am I in relation to them? Gay, lesbian, and queer people
leave the city to attend rural family weddings. Journal of Family Issues, 23(3),
323-348.
Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
23, 81-99.
Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships, personal networks. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Pillemer, K., & Lűscher, K. (2004). Intergenerational ambivalences: New perspectives on parent-child relations in later life. In K. Pillemer & K. Lűscher (Eds.),
Contemporary perspectives in family research (Vol. 4, pp. 1-22). West Yorkshire,
England: Emerald.
Powell, B., Bolzendahl, C., Geist, C., & Steelman, L. (2010). Counted out: Samesex relations and Americans’ definitions of family. New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Reczek, C. (2014a). Conducting a multi family member interview study. Family
Process, 53, 318-335.
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
23
Reczek
Reczek, C. (2014b). The intergenerational relationships of gay men and lesbian
women. Journals of Gerontology Series B, 69, 909-919.
Reczek, C., Liu, H., & Umberson, D. (2010). Just the two of us? How parents influence
adult children’s marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1205-1219.
Rostosky, S. S., Korfhage, B. A., Duhigg, J. M., Stern, A. J., Bennett, L., & Riggle, E.
D. (2004). Same-sex couple perceptions of family support: A consensual qualitative study. Family Process, 43, 43-57.
Scherrer, K. S. (2010). The intergenerational family relationships of grandparents and
GLBQ grandchildren. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 229-264.
Sechrist, J., Suitor, J. J., Vargas, N., & Pillemer, K. (2011). The role of perceived religious similarity in the quality of mother-child relations in later life: Differences
within families and between races. Research on Aging, 33, 3-27.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Seidman, S. (2004). The social construction of sexuality. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton.
Serovich, J. M., Grafsky, E. L., & Craft, S. M. (2011). Does family matter to HIVpositive men who have sex with men? Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 37,
290-298.
Silverstein, M., & Giarrusso, R. (2010). Aging and family life: A decade review.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1039-1058.
Sinclair, H. C., & Wright, B. L. (2009). Social networks, effects on developed relationships. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 1543-1548). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnership:
Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil
unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18,
275-292.
Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships:
Through the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630-644.
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal
Relationships, 7, 325-340.
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and change in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, &
M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 257-284).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, V., Kimport, K., Van Dyke, N., & Andersen, E. A. (2009). Culture and mobilization: Tactical repertoires, same-sex weddings, and the impact on gay activism. American Sociological Review, 74, 865-890.
Thornton, A., Orbuch, T. L., & Axinn, W. G. (1995). Parent-child relationships during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 538-564.
Todosijevic, J., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E. (2005). Relationship satisfaction,
affectivity, and gay-specific stressors in same-sex couples joined in civil unions.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 158-166.
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
24
Journal of Family Issues 
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D. A., Chen, M. D., & Campbell, A. M. (2005).
As good as it gets? A life course perspective on marital quality. Social Forces,
84, 493-511.
Videon, T. M. (2005). Parent-child relations and children’s psychological well-being
do dads matter? Journal of Family Issues, 26, 55-78.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Willson, A. E., Kim, M., Shuey, K., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Ambivalence in the relationship of adult children to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65, 1055-1072.
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016