Part II Resilient Processes and Applications

to Specifi c Populations
Chapter 3
Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples
Arlene Istar Lev

There has been increased academic, political, and clinical interest in lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people in past few decades, producing
greater visibility and amplifi ed media attention to the issues impacting the lives of
sexual and gender minorities. This has resulted in a general trend towards
progressive changes in public policy, culminating in greater numbers of out gay and
lesbian couples forming permanent and legal partnerships, increased service
provision for LGBTQ youth, and broader application of civil rights, like housing
and employment protections for transgender people. Despite this generally
improved social and political climate for LGBTQ people, there is a surprising dearth
of in-depth research specifi cally focused on how same-sex couples create and
sustain long-term relationships (Hunter, 2012) . Oddly enough, research on gay and
lesbian couples has lagged behind other areas of LGBTQ research for example,
lesbian and gay parenting (Goldberg, 2010 ), and transgender identity development
(Lev, 2004 ).
U ntil recent decades, LGBTQ people have lived closeted, furtive lives in
oppressive, restrictive, and often dangerous social and political realities.
Historically, they have experienced bias-related violence, discrimination in public
policy including the inability to form legal partnerships or secure employment
protections, as well as prejudice in the form of daily invalidating microaggressions.
Yet, they have also been able to form and maintain healthy, functioning, stable
families and create vibrant communities, suggesting the development of unique
protective factors that function within these oppressive conditions.
Within the fi eld of psychology, lesbian and gay intimacy has been viewed as
“other,” outside of the mainstream, external of what was considered normal and
A.I. Lev (*)
Choices Counseling and Consulting, University at Albany , Albany , NY , USA e-
mail: Arlene.Lev@gmail.com

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 45

K. Skerrett, K. Fergus (eds.), Couple Resilience,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_3
common. In the not so distant past, the very nature of homosexual attraction was
viewed as pathological, and gender nonconforming behavior is still currently c
onsidered a diagnosable mental illness. Even though lesbian and gay people seek
out therapy in higher numbers than heterosexuals (Cochran, Mays & Sullivan, 2003
), research confi rms that heterosexist microaggressions continue to be (re)enacted
within the clinical relationship (Shelton & Delgado-Romero, 2011 ). Even among
progressive clinicians, LGBTQ identities are considered “alternative,” outside of
normative family life and experiences (Walsh, 2011 ), and a side-bar to mainstream
discussions within academia and clinical discourse.
Attempts at eliminating bias against LGBTQ people through education,
academically and clinically, often lead to inclusion practices that are “added-on”,
i.e., a family therapy course discusses same-sex couples as an addendum lecture at
the end of the course, instead of infusing the material throughout the course. Green
and Mitchell ( 2008) ask their readers to imagine authoring an article entitled
“Therapy with Heterosexual Couples.” The title implies that the material will not be
suffi ciently covered in other chapters and that the information can be adequately
described in one chapter, without resorting to stereotypes about straight people. The
study of LGBTQ couples and families, an emerging and complex area of research
and clinical exploration, is too often relegated to a postscript, an academic footnote.
The reader is encouraged to recognize this dilemma in the overview that follows.
L GBTQ identities are too often “lumped together” confl ating the issues facing
gay men and lesbians, and merging the concerns of bisexual people of both sexes.
Complex issues of transgender, transsexual and gender nonconformity are all placed
under one umbrella, a sort of “pan-queerism,” that minimizes salient differences in
identity and community affi liation. LGBTQ is a useful way to describe broad (and
necessary) political alliances, in the same way the term “people of color” describes
diverse cultural communities, crossing national borders, as well as racial and ethnic
identities. These are, however, inadequate terms – academically and clinically – as
a way to understand the individuals and communities of people who are confl ated
into these larger categories; indeed, it whitewashes the salient particulars of these
identities. Even discussing lesbian and gay couples under one rubric does a d
isservice to the complex and specifically gendered differences in coupling patterns,
community affi liation, and cultural identities.
I n this chapter, the focus is explicitly on lesbian and gay couples (the “L” and
the “G” of LGBTQ), referred to as “same-sex” couples. However, it is to be
remembered that many bisexual people are in same-sex relationships, where they
are often invisible as bisexual people; of course, the same is true for bisexuals in
heterosexual partnerships, a fact rarely mentioned when writing about heterosexual
couples. People who are bisexual can have unique issues when partnering in same-
sex r elationships, including questions of affi liation, identity management, coming
out, and challenges due to the “mixed orientation” within the couple, with notable
differences between men and women.
Addressing the specifi c concerns impacting transgender people in relationships
is also outside the parameters of this article, however, it is to be remembered that
transgender people can identify as heterosexual, gay/lesbian, or bisexual in identity,
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 47

and some lesbian and gay couples (like some heterosexual couples) may have a
transgender member. Depending on the direction, trajectory, and goal of a gender
transition, a transgender person can be in relationship that is defi ned as either “gay”
or “straight.” For example, if a man is involved with a woman they are identifi ed
as heterosexual, and if the man later transitions and begins living as a woman the
couple would then be identifi ed as lesbian; neither of those terms may best describe
how the couple views their own relationship. Transgender people are members of
relationships that are labeled both “same-sex” and “opposite sex,” and within a
postmodern world of “sex changes” and “queer identities,” the term sexual
orientation becomes an inadequate term to fully describe coupling patterns,
identities, and shifts in physical sex and gender expression (Lev & Sennott, 2012 ;
Malpas, 2006 ).
The term same - sex will be used to describe lesbian and gay coupling, not the
phrase “same-gender”; this is done consciously and purposefully. Sex describes
human anatomy (as male and female); gender describes roles, mannerisms, societal
expectations, clothing choices, and how people express their gender (as men and
women). Some lesbian and gay people (like some heterosexuals) exhibit cross-
gender expression, therefore not all same-sex relationships are actually same gender
relationships (Lev, 2004) . For example, some lesbian couples identify as being in
butch/femme relationships, where one partner expresses a more masculine gender,
although both identify as female. Although technically these are same-sex c
ouplings, there are complex gendered patterns that may be important to
acknowledge and explore that have been largely ignored in the literature (Laird,
1999 ; Lev, 2008 ).
The fi elds of LGBTQ studies and the specifi c focus on LGBTQ couple and f
amily development is newly emerging and not yet incorporated into larger areas of
psychology and marriage and family therapy. Although the knowledge base remains
sparse and insuffi cient, nascent emerging research reveals that despite the impact
of severe social oppression and ostracism directed towards sexual minorities, same-
sex couples create and sustain loving relationships within strong communities that
can withstand personal hardships and invalidating social and political environments.

“We-ness” in a Sea of Other-ness

Resilience research has historically focused on individuals, particularly individual

children, living in unusual, high-stress, chaotic conditions. Walsh ( 1996 ) has
encouraged a radically new way to view resilience, by “… shifting focus from
individual traits to interactional processes that must be understood in ecological and
developmental context” (p. 261). Resilience research interrogates the questions of
why some people are emotionally incapacitated by persistent stress, and repeated
microaggressions whereas others appear to emerge stronger, with increased
resources (Unger, 2011 ; Walsh, 2011) . The focus has broadened from only
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 48

studying children to examining adults, and from adults to couples and families;
additionally resilience research currently looks at normative development in daily
life, not only unusual stress-inducing situations. Walsh suggests that familial and
intimate relationships can serve to provide “psychosocial inoculation” and actually
fortify resilience (Walsh, 1996 , p. 261). Relational resilience is not simply one’s
capacity to withstand adversity, but requires the skills to utilize, adapt, and integrate
the tools and resources available, and to do so within an interdependent network that
supports and sustains the process (Unger, 2011 ).
T his idea of relational resilience, resilience that speaks to the “we-ness” of
couples and focuses on their strengths and the process of how people mature and
develop as both individuals and within couples in the face of adversity, is the b
edrock of fully understanding the bonds created within LGBTQ families. Although
therapy practice that is affi rming to sexual minorities has developed within a
strengths and empowerment prospective (see Bieschke, Perez & DeBord, 2007 ),
the research on resilience has only recently being applied to LGBTQ couple and
family building (Bigner & Wetchler, 2012) . The social science study of queer folk
has often focused on individuals and their identity, ignoring the role of intimacy and
community which can serve as protective factors (Giammattei & Green, 2012 ).
Walsh ( 1996 , 2011 ) has critically examined the very concept of family
normalcy and shown how families that differ from the norm tend to be viewed as fl
awed and defective (and perhaps view themselves that way too). The myth that there
is an ideal family is steeped in assumptions that are racially and culturally biased as
well as heterosexist (Ashton, 2011 ). Atypical family structures are often labeled d
ysfunctional despite a growing body of research showing that “family processes
matter more than family form for healthy individual and family functioning”
(Walsh, 1996 , p. 266). Processes that are actually typical and protective within
alternative family structures are often judged as defi cient when measured against
values that are assumed to be universally normative. Harvey ( 2012 ) refers to the
“hidden resilience” of LGBTQ youth, who exhibit behaviors that appear to be
socially problematic, but actually serve as protective factors. For example, fl
amboyance, extreme gender rigidity , or desires to pass can be ways to cope with
marginalized identities and struggles to develop a solid self- e steem in a
condemning world. Opportunities to understand the specifi c resiliencies of lesbian
and gay couples are too often lost because of the biased perspective of the observer
who is outside of, and misinformed about, queer cultural contexts.
I n many ways lesbian and gay couples are similar to heterosexual couples
(Kurdek, 1993 ), but there are also complex differences and specifi c strengths born
of their unique cultural context. Green says, “Heterosexuality and homosexuality
are not logical opposites. Counterposing one against the other inevitably
exaggerates their differences and minimizes their commonalities” (2012, p. 181).
Lesbian and gay couples face additional stressors that heterosexual couples do not
have to face, and one of those stressors is the constant comparison to heterosexual
couples and values that are assumptively heteronormative.
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 49

Heteronormativity is an ideology (often unconscious) that presumes

heterosexuality and promotes gender conventionality and views those values as
superior to alternative forms of sexual orientation, gender expression, and family
formation (Giammattei & Green, 2012; Lev, 2010) . The process of de-centering
heteronormativity and honoring alternative ways of creating family is at the root of
how lesbian and gay couples, as well as other sexual minorities, develop resilience
and build stable families. Lesbians and gays may be functionally and structurally
similar to opposite-sex couples, yet same-sex couples must make meaningful sense
of the adversity they face, as cultural beings who can balance multiple interactive c
oncerns including the environmental context of various LGBTQ communities, and
their own ethnic, racial, and familial cultures.

The Alchemy of Adversity

LGBTQ identities have been formed within hostile environments, and building r
elational permanency requires negotiating complex social dynamics of coming out,
dating, coupling, and immersion into queer cultural milieus as well as managing
“degree of out-ness” with family of origin, cultural communities, and work
environments (Ashton, 2011) . The development of a stable same-sex “we” infers
a long term developmental process from adolescence through maturity in which a
positive gay or lesbian individual identity is forged in the face of societal
condemnation.
L esbian and gay people move through the same stages of the developmental
lifecycle as heterosexual people but experience numerous challenges and
complications unique to their minority status (Ashton, 2011) . Managing social
stigma and discrimination caused by homophobia is one of the most signifi cant
challenges for LGBTQ people. This means they have to cope not only with external
oppression but the complex ways that minority groups internalize and come to
believe the negative messages about themselves (Green & Mitchell, 2008) . Living
in a homophobic c ulture where heterosexuality is assumed and rarely questioned,
same-sex couples have had to negotiate the challenges of their own coming out
processes in order to forge an intimate committed relationship with one another. To
come “out” presumes that one is fi rst of all “in” something, and what LGBTQ
people are in is the a ssumption that they are straight; heterosexuality is the socially
presumed default. Being out, even if in the most minimal ways, is necessary in order
to fi nd sexual or romantic partners.
Coming out does not simply mean recognizing one’s own sexual desires and
preferences, but also includes coming out to others and fi nding and sustaining affi
liations that nurture what is often a despised social identity. Coming out is a process
complicated by one’s social position regarding age, race, ethnic and religious
heritage, geographic locality, access to queer communities, and the anticipated and
actual reaction of family and loved ones (Green, 2011 ).
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 50

The psychosocial stages of coming out delineates a common sequence of

processes and dynamics that LGBTQ people experience in developing an integrated
identity (Ashton, 2011) . For some people, this process begins as a child or teenager,
and for others it does not begin until middle age or later, sometimes after people are
heterosexually married. Negotiating adversity and potential rejection during the
coming out process can be diffi cult, particularly for those who are young and d
ependent on families that are not supportive, as well as those whose cultural or
religious communities view homosexuality as a moral failure (Harvey, 2012 ;
LaSala, 2010 ).
Young people coming out in childhood and adolescence are immersed in the
values and belief structure of their parents or caregivers; they are dependent on them
for not only food and shelter, but emotional nurturance. Unlike other minority
groups, LGBTQ people are seldom reared in families who experience the same
minority identity, therefore parents may be uneducated and poorly prepared to assist
their children in healthy identity development. Research suggests that it is common
for parents to initially be rejecting towards their LGBTQ children (D’Augelli,
Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998; Harvey, 2012; LaSala, 2010, Ryan et al., 2009
, 2010 ). This leaves many LGBTQ youth without parental assistance to navigate
their emerging sexual and gender identities and early explorations into the LGBTQ
communities.
Ryan and her colleagues at the Family Acceptance Project have found that
rejecting behaviors from family were associated with signifi cantly poorer
psychosocial outcomes, including higher rates of depression, increased substance
use, and unprotected sexual activities (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009 ,
2010 ). This is supported by decades of research revealing high incidences of
suicidal ideation, school drop-out rates, homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, and
victimization for LGBTQ youth (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006; Harvey,
2012; LaSala, 2010 ; Nuttbrock et al., 2010 ).
L GBTQ people experience daily microaggressions due to their sexual orientation
and/or gender expression including institutionalized discrimination, vilifi cation of
their sexual desires, denial of their chosen familial bonds, and endless derogatory
marginalization in social discourse and media portrayal (Meyer, 2003 ; Nadal et al.,
2011 ; Sue, 2010 ). This is refl ected in elevated signs of mental health problems in
adulthood, including increased depression, anxiety, substance abuse and other
stress-related disorders (Cochran et al., 2003 ; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010 ; Meyer,
2003 ; Nuttbrock et al., 2010 ) due to invalidating social environments. It is clear
that the psychological consequences of coming out are potentially detrimental, infl
uencing self-e steem as LGBTQ people internalize these messages of social c
ondemnation and rejection; this is especially true for those who are young,
vulnerable, and marginalized (Harvey, 2012 ).
T he qualities of attachment and parental nurturance in childhood are known to
be important for psychological health, but it might also infl uence how young people
experience coming out. Research has shown that diffi culties in childhood
attachment may negatively impact coming out processes and lifelong self-
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 51

acceptance. Mohr and Fassinger’s research ( 2003 ) describe how low levels of
parental support were associated with higher anxiety, and that people with diffi
culties accepting their own sexual orientation were more likely to exhibit a pattern
of attachment anxiety and avoidance behaviors. In turn, patterns of avoidance were
associated with lower levels of self-disclosure in daily life and individuals who are
more out typically report less stress and fewer symptoms of depression or anxiety
(Vaughan & Waehler, 2010 ).
I t is undeniable that discrimination, bias, and microaggressions directed towards
one’s identity can be debilitating (Meyer, 2003 ; Nadal et al., 2011 ; Sue, 2010 ).
There is also, however, evidence that developing skills to manage the stress of being
a sexual minority might also be facilitative and can enhance coping strategies. It has
been suggested that unique strengths are developed by successfully adapting to the
signifi cant adversity inherent in coming out as lesbian or gay. Strength related
growth, or coming out growth, describes how negotiating the processes of coming
out and managing oppressive circumstances can transform the experience of
minority stress into opportunities for enhanced growth and assist in the development
of stable identities (Bonet, Wells, & Parsons, 2007 ; Vaughan & Waehler, 2010 ).
Coming out to others can positively infl uence how people perceive and experience
themselves as gay or lesbian people, and also improves their perception of, and
relationships with, other gay-identifi ed people (Vaughan & Waehler, 2010) . Some
of the benefi ts of coming out growth include: increased honesty and authenticity,
lower use of drugs and alcohol, higher levels of social support and community
integration, lower levels of depression, anxiety, stress and other mental health
challenges, increased levels of self-disclosure and self-acceptance, and better skills
at coping with oppression and negative societal hostility (Bonet et al., 2007 ;
Vaughan & Waehler, 2010 ).
A lthough research has shown that families of origin are often initially rejecting,
it also confi rms that family relationships shift and grow as adolescents and their
families discover and accept an emerging gay and lesbian identity (LaSala, 2010 ).
Families have their own coming out process that must be negotiated and as they
struggle with shame, guilt, and confusion, they must also make meaning of the same
negative social messages about homosexuality with which their children have
contended. This process can bring families together and serve as bridge for increased
communication and a strengthening of family bonds. Ryan and her colleagues (
2009 , 2010 ) have demonstrated that lessening familial rejecting behaviors and
increasing family acceptance will signifi cantly improve outcomes and increase self-
esteem.
Negotiating coming out is a lifelong process, not a single act of disclosure, and
LGBTQ people are repeatedly in situations where they must make choices of what
to let others know about their sexuality, their identity, and their families. The
resilience necessary to cope with repeated societal microaggressions emerges from
n urturing relationships with families of origin as well as negotiating adversity
within the confi nes of a heteronormative and invalidating cultural environment.
Successfully coming out is a necessary preparation to fi nding and joining with a
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 52

same-sex partner, and the competence developed by coming out to families that are
often initially rejecting, as well as confronting societal bias, may contribute to
increased skills at partnership building.

Same-Sex Couples: Challenges

Green ( 2004) suggests that there are “three interrelated risk factors for lesbian and
gay couples forming a partnership: (1) homophobia (external and internal); (2) lack
of a normative and legal template for same-sex couples; and (3) lower levels of
family social support” (p. 290). The challenges of homophobia and lack of familial
support were discussed above; the focus here is the lack of a normative legal
template. Without a relational template for same-sex couples, Green ( 2004 ) says,
there is no “preordained prescription for what being a same-sex couple means” (p.
291). Same-sex couples need to negotiate what has been for heterosexuals very basic
and assumed (and gendered) tasks, i.e., who pays for the date and who takes out the
garbage, as well as complex psycho-emotional processes, i.e., who initiates sex, and
which partner will get pregnant and carry the couple’s child. Green says that the lack
of a relational template creates relational ambiguity ( 2008 , 2011 ).
Relational ambiguity is a concept expanded from Pauline Boss’s theory of
“boundary ambiguity.” Boss defi ned boundary ambiguity as “a state in which
family members are uncertain in their perception of who is in or out of the family
and who is performing what roles or tasks in the family system” (Boss & Greenberg,
1987 , p. 536, as quoted by Green & Mitchell, 2008 , p. 667). Relational ambiguity
is at the heart of any discussion about relational resilience in same-sex coupling
since there has been no cultural script or set of rules for how lesbian and gay couples
“should” be a couple, or present themselves to the society. Patterson and Schwartz
( 1994 ) say that couples must be able to “telegraph to others the shape and
seriousness of their commitment. They must invent some ‘marital’ rules, borrow
others, and pick some to avoid” (p. 4). In other words, it must be an active process,
and one that is not just internal to the partners, but also involves ongoing
communication with their family and social world.
Same-sex couples have had to create healthy boundaries around the relationship,
in the absence of culturally proscribed ones. Historically there have been legal
constraints on establishing protective boundaries around the relationship, leaving
the relationship less secure fi nancially, legally, and emotionally. Lesbian and gay
couples have long desired to secure their relationships, although this has only
recently become possible with changes in law and policy which have increasingly
made same-sex marriage possible in many countries and U.S. states. Hatzenbuehler
and colleagues ( 2010) examined how the lack of institutional recognition can infl
uence mental health for LGB people, and they found that LGB individuals living in
states with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage experienced increased
rates of psychiatric disorders. Research shows that couples who had civil unions
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 53

have more fi nancial and familial intertwinement of their lives, and lesbian couples
were less closeted about their sexual orientation (Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam,
2004 ). The cost of relational ambiguity is high and increased civil rights clearly
serves as a protective factor.
I n order to resolve relationship ambiguity, same-sex couples have historically
had to engage in a complex dialogue about their commitment, as well as manage
issues of power and roles. What is accomplished easily with a marriage certifi cate
for heterosexual couples must be established through wills, powers of attorney,
health care proxies, etc., at great expense and with necessary forethought for the gay
and lesbian couple before marriage equality laws. The communication necessary to
negotiate partnerships can be a great boon to the relationship, when this process is
successful. However, when it is not successful, the lack of legal bonds can be
devastating. This is, of course, rapidly changing as lesbian and gay couples are now
legally allowed to marry in many states.
Relationship ambiguity is poignantly illustrated by Allen’s ( 2007 ) personal
narrative of having her lesbian partner end their relationship, refusing to allow her
contact with a child she had parented since birth and raising the question of how one
can divorce when there is no recognition of marriage. When her and her partner
broke up, her partner took their son; she had no legal standing as a non-biological
parent, creating a painful, relentless sense of loss, with no hope of legal or political
redress, creating what she referred to as the “structural ambiguity of being a
politically and legally invisible family” (p. 181). In a heterosexual relationship, her
rights as a parent would have been protected, regardless of her ex-partner’s desires.
The cognitive dissonance of both being a family and yet not having the power to
protect those you love or determine the direction of your future together speaks to
the ambiguity of relationship status within same-sex coupling and its impact on
family-building.
Without legally protective and socially affi rmed rituals, when does a
relationship move from dating to something more serious, and when does a
relationship in trouble cease to be a relationship? When boundaries are permeable,
how are they negotiated? Heterosexual relationships are governed by a set of social
and legally sanctioned rituals from buying engagement rings, to owning a house and
putting both spouses’ names on the deed, to complex laws dividing property when
there is a divorce. Surely not all heterosexual couples follow these patterns, and
some vocally rebel against them, but until relatively recently same-sex couples who
wanted to embrace these rituals were blocked by laws that have not recognize their
union as legitimate, and by the potential social discomfort caused when they shop
for an engagement ring, or new house, within a heteronormative and often blatantly
homophobic culture. Additionally, family members, as well as shopkeepers may or
may not honor these attempts at creating security in their relationship, and might
even resort to minimizing or mocking responses. The couple, as individuals as well
as a unit, must confront societal homophobia as well as their internalized fear of
rejection or exposure. Indeed, due to ambiguity of rules, it may not be easy to decide
who buys an engagement ring for whom in relationships where gender roles have
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 54

not been fi rmly established and rigidly adhered to by socialized male/female

constraints! Clearly, relational ambiguity can be a potential minefi eld of stress and
adversity, yet the creative solutions to address this ambiguity are one of great
strengths of same-sex relationships. Undoubtedly, the excitement over marriage
equality and the Supreme Court decision that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
is unconstitutional, fosters a more supportive social environment for same-sex
couples and resolves some relationship ambiguity enabling them to feel more secure,
psychologically as well as legally.

Same-Sex Couples: Strengths

R elational or couple resilience infers that a couple is successfully coping with

adversity and research shows that lesbian and gay couples are remarkably similar to
heterosexual couples in terms of how they manage their daily lives and address confl
icts within their relationships (Kurdek, 1993 ). Same-sex couples organize their
lives in similar ways as heterosexual couples in the sense that they date, move
towards greater intimacy, and begin a process of pair-bonding (Ashton, 2011 ).
They celebrate milestone events like anniversaries, they move in together, set up
housekeeping, and plan on having children (Bigner & Wetchler, 2012 ; Goldberg
& Allen, 2012) . Like all other couples they manage stressful events like illness or
infi delity, and eventually they face aging issues together (Dziengel, 2011 ; Genke,
2004 ; Witten & Eyler, 2012 ).
Quam and colleagues ( 2010 ) found that a majority of older same-sex couples
lived together and/or owned a home together, and had shared bank accounts and
credit cards. Research shows that fi nancial interdependence, commitment rituals,
and securing legal ties to one another in the absence of marital contracts was part of
lesbian and gay coupling for decades, long before the explosion of media attention
and increased social acceptance (Bryant & Demian, 1994 ).
Lesbian and gay couples describe a high level of relationship quality, satisfaction
and stability (Bryant & Demian, 1994 ; Connolly, 2005 ; Gottman et al., 2003 ;
Green & Mitchell, 2008 ; Hunter, 2012 ; Kurdek, 2005 ). They tend to resolve
confl ict constructively, have high rates of communication, and place great value
on intimacy and closeness. Jonathan ( 2009) studied communication patterns in
same-sex couples and identifi ed that lesbian and gay couples showed a high
attunement to one another’s needs, referred to as an attuned-equality pattern. Same-
sex couples were attentive to fairness and justice, engaged in conscious relationship
strategies, including shared decision-making, and careful confl ict management.
There was an ongoing evaluation of the relationship and a willingness to re-negotiate
when confl ict arises. Additionally, male same-sex couples reported increased
autonomy, and female same-sex couples reported high intimacy and equality
(Gottman et al., 2003 ).
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 55

In most heterosexual relationships gender plays an important role in determining

both daily tasks, and psycho-emotional relational rules regarding communication
patterns and childrearing practices; indeed gendered expectations permeate every
area of marital life. Gender is also a salient factor for same-sex couples, but since
gender dynamics are not based in heterosexual (and heterosexist) rules (Hunter,
2012 ) the role of gender has often been under-explored and perhaps sometimes
completely misunderstood.
In gay and lesbian partnerships gender is a relational task that is negotiated
depending on numerous variables, including personality and interests, sub-cultural
community patterns and values, and may be re-negotiated depending on the shifting
needs of the individuals and family through the course of the lifecycle (Connolly,
2005 ; Green & Mitchell, 2008 ; Jonathan, 2009 ). Since neither partner enters the
relationship with an expectation that their social roles will be based along gender
lines, both men and women are “allowed” to explore both traditionally masculine
and feminine roles. No one is designated as “the person who takes out the garbage,”
or “the one who will get pregnant,” these relational tasks must be discussed and
negotiated, refl ecting a high need for communication and confl ict resolution.
Contemporary research has consistently shown that same-sex couples exhibit a
value of equality and shared power in how they organize their daily lives. Lesbian
and gay couples are active participants in co-creating their relationship. There is an
interactional pattern of closeness, a strong desire to create an equality of power, and
openness of communication (Green, 2011 ); this is especially true in lesbian
relationships (Connolly, 2005 ). Connolly ( 2006 ) refers to a dynamic of mutuality,
a strong “personal dedication to the relationship” (p. 151). Couples often develop an
“us-against-the-world” perspective (Connolly , 2006 , p. 151), which can assist in
couple cohesion, the sense of being a “united front” (ibid) against oppression and
discrimination.
Decision-making regarding household labor becomes a mutual task, and in the
majority of same-sex couples the household responsibilities are divided relatively
equally between the partners (Jonathan, 2009 ; Kurdek, 2005 ; Quam et al., 2010
; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam,, 2004 ). In families with children, child-rearing
chores and parental responsibilities are also equally shared in lesbian and gay
couples (Goldberg, 2010 , 2012). Interestingly, it is also true in lesbian relationships
where gender roles are explicitly butch/femme identifi ed; Levitt, Gerrish and
Hiestand ( 2003 ) discovered that although gender was a salient factor in how these
couples identifi ed and expressed themselves, housekeeping duties were not divided
along traditional gender lines. As Lev ( 2008 ) has said,
Examining domestic chores and parenting styles, or even power dynamics and
communication styles, may not accurately measure the way that gender operates within
same-sex couples, and for butch/femme couples it may actually mask the way that gender
roles are understood and interpreted within the relationship. If research about gender roles
assumes a power d ifferential attached to the gender expression, the “equality” within the
lesbian couple may hide important aspects of how gender functions in the relationship that
is neither traditional (i.e., based in hetero-normativity) nor hierarchal. (p. 138)
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 56

Within heterosexual coupling, gender role expectations have symbolized

complex power dynamics between the members of the couple. Examining gender in
same-sex couples may require a different lens, a less heterosexist lens, to determine
the meaning of behavior. Gay and lesbian couples are able to explore gender, “play”
with gender, express gender, without it necessarily being attached to traditional
gender roles, or societal rules. The stay-at-home mom may be a dad who lifts
weights and bakes cookies. It is not that gender is absent in gay and lesbian couples;
it may simply refl ect different cultural patterns. It is necessary to deconstruct the
meaning of gender and roles, without heterosexist assumptions. For example, the
closeness in lesbian relationships has often been mislabeled as “fusion,” instead of
seeing the deeper intimacy between two women as a potential strength of their
female coupling (Green, 2011 ; Macdonald, 1998 ; Spitalnick & McNair, 2005 ).
Research on sexuality is particularly susceptible to a heterosexist analysis. Many
studies have shown that lesbians tend to have less frequent genital sex when
compared to heterosexual or gay male couples. This is often stated as a “problem,”
ignoring the equally compelling information that lesbians express higher satisfaction
in their intimate sexual relationships (Green, 2011 ; McDonald, 1998 ). If
researchers perceive that sexual frequency trumps sexual satisfaction, then lesbians
are seen as having a defi cit in their sex lives. In a similar vein, research has also
shown that non-monogamy and open relationships are more common in gay male
relationships (Bryant & Demian, 1994 ; LaSala, 2004 ; Spitalnick & McNair, 2005
). Within the context of a heterosexual lens, a lack of fi delity would likely be viewed
as a lack of commitment, but research does not show that gay male couples are less
committed or happy in their relationships. When examining coupling patterns and
gender, same-sex couples should not be judged within the same value orientation as
heterosexual couples, but rather with a queer cultural lens. Negotiating complex
areas of gender and sexuality actually requires high levels of communication and
sophisticated skills of confl ict resolution, which may indeed be a strength, a hidden
resilience, for gay and lesbian couples.
It is possible that same-sex couples have an advantage to being reared in same
gender role as their partners. They may be similar to one another in important ways,
and this similarity may increase closeness, cohesion, egalitarianism, and emotional
expressiveness, especially for women. This may lead to great attunement during
confl ict since they approach disagreements from a position of peer equality and
humor (Gottman et al., 2003 ) which may assist the couple in re-bounding from
adversity with great ease (Connolly, 2005 , 2006 ).

Strength in Numbers: LGBTQ Community

A s part of the process of coming out, most gay and lesbian people recognize that
they are different in important contextual ways from heterosexual peers and also
similar in core ways to other LGBTQ people, so they seek out communities that will
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 57

affi rm and mirror their emerging identities. Seeking out community and fi nding
resources, social services, and support has been instrumental in assisting people in
developing a positive queer identity. From facing the negativities of oppression and
minority stress, through the process of reframing and reinventing, LGBTQ people
have created an affi rming cultural community, which helps sustain long-term
friendships, intimate relationships, and creates an environment for family building.
Green (2011 ) says, “it evolved over many decades as part of a secret society that
protected its members against physical, economic, legal, and social threats to
survival and well-being” (p. 176).
Like all communities, the community that gay and lesbian people have built has
its own cultural norms and behavior patterns. It has served as a safe harbor for queer
people who have most often been raised by heterosexual parents within straight
culture. Living without formal recognition for same-sex pair boding, a vibrant c
ulture has arisen that borrows from the mainstream culture, but is willing to also
stretch into new ways of building intimacy and family. LGBTQ people have built
communities, with its own set of meta-rules and patterned ways of communication.
It is common, for example, for LGBTQ people to remain close to ex-lovers, and
build families based not on blood, but love and commitment. For those who have
been ostracized from their families of origin, the LGBTQ community often replaces
the family that has been rejecting or abandoning and becomes an extended family,
providing nurturance, support, and a place to celebrate holidays, or seek our c omfort
in trying times. There is also great variety of intimate relationship arrangements that
are acceptable within the LGBTQ community, including open relationships and
polyamory (Green & Mitchell, 2008 ; LaSala, 2004 ).
Research consistently shows the importance of the LGBTQ community in the
lives of lesbian and gay couples (Dziengel, 2011 ; Genke, 2004 ; Green, 2011 ;
Vaughan & Waehler, 2010) . Involvement in the LGBTQ community was also
found to predict high levels of coming out growth (Bonet et al., 2007 ; Vaughan &
Waehler, 2010 ), because being with other queer people increases individual self-
esteem and challenges isolation. Additionally, the LGBTQ community has become
a powerful political voice advocating for marriage equality, and empowering queer
people to demand equal treatment and fi ght oppressive laws.
T he LGBTQ community is also a place to meet others for dating as well as fi
nding mutual supports for socializing. This is especially true for those who live more
rurally, or in more insular religious or cultural communities; the Internet has been
instrumental in creating support for LGBTQ people who are more isolated
(Giammattei & Green, 2012) . Involvement in the LGBTQ community has been
essential for creating supports for people living with AIDS, as well as coping with
other illness and aging issues (Dziengel, 2011 ; Genke, 2004 ; Witten & Eyler,
2012 ). In this sense community-building is a source of resilience, a mutual aid
relationship, where those coming out seek out the community while developing their
identity and their continued engagement in the community creates a lifeline for those
who follow.
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 58

S ame-sex couples have role models within the larger community to mirror
their experiences. As the LGBTQ community has grown, multiple communities and
identities for sexual minorities have expanded, and possibilities for post-modern
coupling and sexual expression have also broadened. The experience of being
around others who can affi rm relationships that are outside of the heteronormative
culture, creates a “narrative coherence” (Walsh, 1996 , p. 267), that mirrors ones
personal experience, helps to normalize them, and then creates an environment to
make meaning of shared identities and relationships.

Relational Resilience in a Changing World

T he process of de-centering heteronormativity, and developing supportive

commu-nities, has given lesbian and gay couples the ability to re-vision their
relationships, and create unique family forms. The nature of same-sex coupling
allows for greater diversity in how families are organized around gender, and infl
uences greater fl exibility in all areas of life from household chores to sexual
intimacy. Relational resilience is born from adversity; many of the unique family
forms have been forged from surviving diffi cult conditions.
Lesbian women and gay men forming intimate partnerships need to negotiate
complex interactions within society including: discrimination and bias in the form
of blatant and sometimes violent homophobia; invisibility due to ubiquitous
heterosexism and misinformation about queer identity and communities; and harsh
gender role socialization and societal punishment of gender transgressions.
Additionally, they must manage equally complex psychological and intrapersonal
processes including struggles regarding coming out and identity self-disclosure as
well as issues of r elational ambiguity, forging a functioning couple identity without
culturally proscribed roles or legal boundary containment.
T here are also specifi c tasks in individual relationships that must be successfully
negotiated in order to form stable, loving relationships that can withstand normative
and out-of-the ordinary crises. For example, partners might come out at different
ages or stages in the lifecycle, or come from different religious or cultural
backgrounds, and might not be comfortable with similar levels of disclosure about
their relationship. They might have to face illness or infertility or unemployment.
Lesbian and gay couples must develop the protective factors necessary to confront
the n ormative interpersonal challenges that impact all couples regardless of their
sexual orientation.
In recent years, public policy has shifted and these changes have created many
benefi ts for the LGBTQ community. For example, adoption by out lesbian and gay
people has become socially sanctioned by major national child welfare
organizations, and more municipalities have instituted discrimination protections in
housing and employment for transgender persons. Same-sex marriage, viewed as a
pipe- dream a mere decade ago, has gained traction and become a legal fait accompli
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 59

in many countries and in increasing numbers of U.S. states. However, it is easy to

forget while these changes are celebrated that most U.S. states still do not allow
same-sex marriage, or have protections for queer families in housing or employment
and most LGBTQ people still face complex adverse social situations. Bias- related
violence remains an ongoing threat, even in progressive urban environments.
The tide, however, has clearly turned from the closeted, fearful homophobia
common only decades ago. Green and Mitchell ( 2008 ) cite D’Augelli and
colleagues ( 2006 ) research showing that young lesbian and gay teens plan to marry
and have children when they are older, something an older generation of LGBTQ
could not have imagined envisioning as young people. There is tremendous hope for
the future of lesbian and couples, building on long history of creating relationships
in hostile and negative environments.
Research continues to show that same-sex couples value communication, and
develop a strong sense of “we-ness” and mutuality, which are protective factors
against both external oppression, and relational ambiguity. As LGBTQ people
increasingly secure legal rights and become integrated in positive ways into
mainstream culture, the challenge is to maintain the unique relational resiliencies
developed within queer communities and retain the lessons learned while living as
outlaws.
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 60

3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples

References
Allen, K. R. (2007). Ambiguous loss after lesbian couples with children break up: A case for same- gender divorce. Family
Relations, 56 , 175–183.
Ashton, D. (2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals and the family life cycle. In M. McGoldrick, B. Carter, &
N. Garcia-Preto (Eds.), The expanded family lifecycle (pp. 115–132). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bieschke, K., Perez, R., & DeBord, K. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual
clients (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bigner, J. J., & Wetchler, J. L. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of LGBT-affi rmative couple and family therapy (pp. 57–68). New York:
Routledge.
Bonet, L., Wells, B. E., & Parsons, J. T. (2007). A positive look at a diffi cult time: A strength based examination of coming out
for lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3 (1), 7–14.
Boss, P., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Family boundary ambiguity: A new variable in family stress theory. Family Process, 23 (4),
535–546.
Bryant, A. S., & Demian. (1994). Relationship characteristics of American gay and lesbian couples: Findings from a national
survey. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1 (2), 101–117.
Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., & Sullivan, J. G. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health
services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71
(1), 53–56.
Connolly, C. M. (2005). A qualitative exploration of resilience in long-term lesbian couples. The Family Journal, 13 , 266–280.
Connolly, C. M. (2006). A feminist perspective of resilience in lesbian couples. Journal of Feminist Therapy, 18 , 137–162.
D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure
of sexual orientation and its consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68 , 361–371.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among
lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (11), 1462–1482.
Dziengel, L. (2011). Resilience, ambiguous loss, and older same-sex couples: The resilience constellation model. Journal of Social
Service Research, 38 (1), 74–88.
Genke, J. (2004). Resistance and resilience: The untold story of gay men aging with chronic illness. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 17 (2), 81–95.
Giammattei, S. V., & Green, R.-J. (2012). LGBTQ couple and family therapy. In J. J. Bigner & J. L. Wetchler’s (Eds.), Handbook
of LGBT-affi rmative couple and family therapy (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.
Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Gay and lesbian parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle . Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2012). LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice . New
York: Springer.
Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Gross, J., Frederickson, B. L., McCoy, K., Rosenthal, L., et al. (2003). Correlates of gay and
lesbian couples’ relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality, 45 (1), 23–43.
Green, R.-J. (2004). Risk and resilience in lesbian and gay couples: Comment on Solomon, Rothblum, and Balsam (2004). Journal
of Family Psychology, 18 (2), 290–292.
Green, R.-J. (2011). Gay and lesbian family life: Risk, resilience, and rising expectations. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family process
(4th ed., pp. 172–195). New York: Guildford Press.
Green, R.-J., & Mitchell, V. (2008). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Minority stress, relational ambiguity, and families of
choice. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4th ed., pp. 662–680). New York: Guilford Press.
Harvey, R. (2012). Young people, sexual orientation, and resilience. In M. Unger (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A
handbook of theory and practice (pp. 3–25). New York: Springer.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2010). The impact of institutional discrimination on
psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations:
A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health, 100 (3), 452–459.
Hunter, S. (2012). Lesbian and gay couples: Lives, issues, and practice. Chicago: Lyceum Books.
Jonathan, N. (2009). Carrying equal weight: Relational responsibility and attunement among same-sex couples. In C. Knudson-
Martin & A. Rankin Mohoney (Eds.), Couples, gender and power: Creating change in intimate relationship (pp. 79–104).
New York: Springer.
Kurdek, L. (1993). The allocation of household labor in homo and hetero cohabiting couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49 , 127–
139.
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 (5), 251–
254.
Laird, J. (1999). Gender and sexuality in lesbian relationships; Feminist and constructionist perspectives. In J. Laird (Ed.), Lesbians
and lesbian families: Refl ections on theory and practice (pp. 47–90). New York: Columbia University Press.
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples 61

LaSala, M. (2004). Monogamy of the heart: Extradyadic sex and gay male couples. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 17
(3), 1–24.
LaSala, M. C. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families adjust to a gay or lesbian child . New York: Colombia
University Press.
Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working for gender- variant people and their families .
New York: Routledge.
Lev, A. I. (2008). More than surface tension: Femmes in families. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (2–3), 126–143.
Lev, A. I. (2010). How queer – the development of gender identity and sexual orientation in LGBTQ-headed families. Family
Process, 49 (2), 268–290.
Lev, A. I., & Sennott, S. (2012). Trans-sexual desire in different gendered bodies. In J. J. Bigner & J. L. Wetchler (Eds.), Handbook
of LGBT-affi rmative couple and family therapy . New York: Taylor & Francis.
Levitt, H. M., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misunderstood gender: A model of modern femme identity. Sex Roles,
48 , 99–113.
MacDonald, B. J. (1998). Issues in therapy with gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 24 (3), 165–190.
Malpas, J. (2006). From otherness to alliance: Transgender couples in therapy. The Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2 (3/4), 183–
206.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and
research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (5), 674–697.
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Self-acceptance and self disclosure of sexual orientation in lesbian, gay and bisexual adults:
An attachment perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 (4), 482–495.
Nadal, K. L., Marie-Anne, I., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions:
“Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8 , 234–259.
Nuttbrock, L., Hwahng, S., Bockting, W., Rosenblum, A., Mason, M., Macri, M., et al. (2010). Psychiatric impact of gender-related
abuse across the life course of male-to- female transgender persons. Journal of Sex Research, 47 (1), 12–23.
Patterson, D. G., & Schwartz, P. (1994). The social construction of confl ict in intimate same-sex couples. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.),
Confl ict in personal relationships (pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3 Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Couples

Quam, J. K., Whitford, G. S., Dziengel, L. E., & Knochel, K. A. (2010). Exploring the nature of same-sex relationships: What
contributes to couple satisfaction in older adults? Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 53 (8), 702–722.
Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and
Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123 , 346–352.
Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults.
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23 , 205–213.
Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: The e xperience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
queer clients in psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58 (2), 210–221.
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 , 275–286.
Spitalnick, J. S., & McNair, L. D. (2005). Couples therapy with gay and lesbian clients: An analysis of important clinical issues.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 31 , 43–56.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation . New York: Wiley.
Unger, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81 (1), 1–17.
Vaughan, M. D., & Waehler, C. A. (2010). Coming out growth: Conceptualizing and measuring stress-related growth associated
with coming out to others as a sexual minority adult. Journal of Adult Development, 17 , 94–109.
Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35 , 261–281.
Walsh, F. (2011). Normal family process (4th ed.). New York: Guildford Press.
Witten, T. M., & Eyler, A. E. (Eds.). (2012). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender aging: Challenges in research, practice,
and policy . Baltimore,