By: Abby M. Haak
Since 1990, many new studies have been done on the relationships of same-sex couples and their families. These studies usually assume that all LGB families are alike in their experiences and needs. These studies also assume that LGB families follow heteronormative family guidelines. Heteronormativity is the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm and that all individuals are straight. Here's a great song about heteronormativity: Heteronormativity Rap.
The problem with putting LGB families in a heteronormative framework is that it makes any non-heteronormative experiences invisible! It is almost as though the only difference between LGB families and straight families is that some are with people of the same gender and some are not, when in fact LGB families face different obstacles in their relationships/families than heterosexual families experience (examples: legal restraints, social stigmas).
The article "Same-Sex Relationships and Dissolution: The Connection Between Heteronormativity and Homonormativity", Van Eeden-Moorefield, Martell, Williams, and Preston attempt to show how same-sex relationships are diverse, especially in regards to their endings (dissolutions). They begin the paper by looking at the prevalence of same-sex couples in the United States and the rate at which these couples go through a relationship dissolution (break-up, divorce, separation).
The authors note that because of legal differences from state to state, LGB individuals often need to go through special hoops in order to dissolve relationships. For example, look at this infograph of states that allow LGB couples to marry. If an individual gets married in Iowa but then moves to Texas and wants to get a divorce, he/she might not be able to because that would require Texas (where LGB marriage is not recognized) to say that the marriage was valid and therefore could be dissolved. Next, the authors describe some of the social challenges that LGB couples face when dissolving their relationships. For example, many LGB couples face social stigmas (negative assumptions about themselves because of their sexual identity) and these stigmas can cause stress within their relationships.
As more and more states allow same-sex couples to marry and with the repeal of DOMA, legal dissolution of marriages are inevitable (admit it-- sometimes divorce happens! Check out these divorce rates). The authors call for more research to be conducted on LGB couples and
how they deal with the end of their relationships, especially research
that does not make heteronormative assumptions about the relationships
and experiences of LGB couples.
If you want to learn more about the authors of this article, click these links!
Brad Van Eeden Moorefield
Christopher Martell
If you want to learn more about the authors of this article, click these links!
Brad Van Eeden Moorefield
Christopher Martell
One of the most intriguing parts of “Same-Sex Relationships and Dissolution: The Connection Between Heteronormativity and Homonormativity” Abby Haak already mentioned. I was shocked by the example Brad Van Eeden-Moorfield gave on page 566. Van Eeden-Moorfield explained that a couple got married in Massachusetts, but eventually wanted a divorce. The couple then relocated to Texas. However, because Texas had a ban on same sex marriage, the judge’s ruling implied because the couple could divorce, their marriage was legal. Sadly, a higher appointed judge overturned this ruling and the couple was unable to receive a divorce. This example shows how legislation can have undesired consequences where LBG are in a legal gray area. “For these and many other same-sex couples, the emotional, legal, and psychological closure afforded to divorcing heterosexual couples was not accessible to them” (Van-Eeden-Mororfield et al 567). In this case, the couple is unable to dissolution their marriage despite being in both parties interests. This experience could cause financial and emotional problems for both parties involved.
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues I had with the article was its methodology. I would much prefer a mixed method approached where both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. For example on page 567, Van Eeden-Moorfield explains how couples having sex outside of the relationship is not always seen as a breach of trust. “The negotiation of nonmonogamy represents an adaptive way to navigate sexual incompatibility and demonstrates a high value of maintaining the couple relationship” (567). This statement seems to be based on an earlier mentioned statistics of how many LGB and Heterosexual individuals view sex outside of the relationship as a breach of trust. However, because of the lack of qualitative data, there is no evidence provided of how the negotiation of nonmonogamy affects partners in the relationship. Is it always because of sexual incompatibility or helping to maintain the relationship? I think by adding interviews with LGB individuals the statistics presented in the article would hold more value.
Moorfield, Martell, Wiliams and Preston (2011) argue that same sex couples experiences have been compared with heterosexual couples experiences; the experiences are never the same and because of the comparison, same sex couples have been made invisible and minimal research done on them (p.563). This has limited the resources that are available to dissolution of marriages for same sex couples. Legal procedures for heterosexual couples are well set, presented and resources readily available in almost every state. The article has noted that some states do not even recognize same sex marriages; it is ironical if they would have laws on same sex marriages dissolution and resources available.
ReplyDeleteMoorfield et al (2011) identify that samples used to conduct research usually involve “white, well-educated and middle class”. The representation of same sex couples is from one category and the others are left out, it limits the diversity and underestimates the numbers of same sex couples (p.564). I like the way article highlights the gap that exists when research is being conducted. This shows where more research should be conducted; when giving definitions of family and couples all this should be factored in, be included in the legal field to be covered during dissolution of marriages. Same sex couples are getting married in different states; the legal dissolution of the marriages should be examined thoroughly to provide justice to both parties involved.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Same-Sex Relationships and Dissolution: The Connection Between Heteronormativity and Homonormativity” Moorfield, Martell, Wiliams and Preston argued that “The stigma that surrounds gay and lesbian identities in the United States fosters fear of allowing others to know their sexual orientation, which maintains invisibility” (564). There are always negative and positive significances of disclosing identity. It is hard to disclose individual identity and hidden status where the society concept is still so narrow. People choose to remain invisible in society to avoid bias, discrimination, and inaccessibility. I think majority of gay and lesbian hesitate to disclose their identity, because there is more possibility to be treated differently and rejected from their friends circle and community. Compared to younger and older generation, young individual who identify gay or lesbian are more visible in the community now. Revolution of law and legislations now make more sense to be visible and open to their sexual orientation. The authors mentioned that “Individual who are younger are more likely to be out publically than are older gays and lesbians: (564). I think more visibility in public places will help to change attitude towards stereotype. Visibility that young generation has shown helped to increase acceptance of same sex relationship in society.
ReplyDeleteI was expecting more diversity in this research. The research was only limited to certain group “white, educated and middle class” .The author mentioned the research limitation “the samples are primarily white, well-educated and middle class” ( 564). It could be great if authors include other diverse population, class and education level/ back ground. As mentioning the gab in the research the authors tried to leave on the audience to think about individuals of color, uneducated, low middle or poor. What about minority groups? What there struggle look like?