U.S. Family Law Along the Slippery Slope: the limits of a sexual rights strategy for polyamorous parents

Sexualities ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 136346072110614
Author(s):  
Kimberly Rhoten ◽  
Elisabeth Sheff ◽  
Jonathan Lane
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Sexual Rights ◽  
Blended Families ◽  
Sexual Citizenship ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Family Courts ◽  
Federal Recognition ◽  
Legal Strategies ◽  
Formal Recognition

Families in the United States are rapidly changing, and the normative familial model of two married, monogamous, heterosexual parents with children no longer reflects the majority of U.S. families. Nonetheless, state incentive-based policies and discriminatory family laws continue to enforce heteronormative monogamy. Recent changes to the U.S. legal landscape have produced limited formal recognition and protections for same-sex couples and LGBTQ parents, and even these narrow rights are withheld from other diverse familial configurations including families with polyamorous parents. This article uses the concept of sexual citizenship to frame the analysis of U.S. family courts’ normative construction of family, identifying striking parallels between family courts’ historical and contemporary prejudicial treatment of LGBTQ parents and the institution’s similar delegitimization and denigration of polyamorous parents today. This paper reviews polyamorous parents’ efforts towards achieving legal and societal legitimatization, finding significant parallels with legal strategies LGBTQ parents utilized to seek legal recognition and protection prior to federal recognition of same-sex marriage. This paper highlights the inadequacies of such a formal sexual citizenship approach, finding that a limited strategy of accumulating specific sexual rights fails to address non-monogamy’s more radical cultural presence as well as the (non-legal) informal aspects of belonging needed to improve the livability of polyamorous parents’ and their children’s lives. This paper concludes with recommendations for improving the treatment of non-traditional families including LGBTQ, polyamorous, and other blended families, both within and outside the legal institution.

Children of Same-Sex Couples

2020 ◽  
pp. 230-242
Author(s):  
Debra M. Perez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Minority ◽  
The United States ◽  
Family Type ◽  
Blended Families ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Shared Experiences ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Minority People

As the United States becomes more accepting of sexual minority people, more opportunities have become available for same-sex couples to become parents. Blended families with a new stepparent, planned families via insemination, as well as adoption and fostering are changing what defines a family. As the definition of a family changes, so must the ways in which schools interact with each family type. The shared experiences of sexual minority parents and their children are explored, and recommendations for schools are made.

Children of Same-Sex Couples

2022 ◽  
pp. 459-472
Author(s):  
Debra M. Perez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Minority ◽  
The United States ◽  
Family Type ◽  
Blended Families ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Shared Experiences ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Minority People

As the United States becomes more accepting of sexual minority people, more opportunities have become available for same-sex couples to become parents. Blended families with a new stepparent, planned families via insemination, as well as adoption and fostering are changing what defines a family. As the definition of a family changes, so must the ways in which schools interact with each family type. The shared experiences of sexual minority parents and their children are explored, and recommendations for schools are made.

scholarly journals Same-Sex Couples and Cognitive Impairment: Evidence From the Health and Retirement Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Liu ◽  
Ning Hsieh ◽  
Zhenmei Zhang ◽  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Kenneth M Langa
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cognitive Status ◽  
Health And Retirement Study ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Retirement Study

Abstract Objectives We provide the first nationally representative population-based study of cognitive disparities among same-sex and different-sex couples in the United States. Methods We analyzed data from the Health and Retirement Study (2000–2016). The sample included 23,669 respondents (196 same-sex partners and 23,473 different-sex partners) aged 50 and older who contributed to 85,117 person-period records (496 from same-sex partners and 84,621 from different-sex partners). Cognitive impairment was assessed using the modified version of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Mixed-effects discrete-time hazard regression models were estimated to predict the odds of cognitive impairment. Results The estimated odds of cognitive impairment were 78% (p < .01) higher for same-sex partners than for different-sex partners. This disparity was mainly explained by differences in marital status and, to a much lesser extent, by differences in physical and mental health. Specifically, a significantly higher proportion of same-sex partners than different-sex partners were cohabiting rather than legally married (72.98% vs. 5.42% in the study sample), and cohabitors had a significantly higher risk of cognitive impairment than their married counterparts (odds ratio = 1.53, p < .001). Discussion The findings indicate that designing and implementing public policies and programs that work to eliminate societal homophobia, especially among older adults, is a critical step in reducing the elevated risk of cognitive impairment among older same-sex couples.

scholarly journals Minimizing and addressing microaggressions in the workplace: Be proactive, part 2

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (10) ◽  
pp. 538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamika Dalton ◽  
Michele Villagran
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Work Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
People Of Color ◽  
History Plays ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Underrepresented Groups ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Movement Discrimination

Our nation’s history plays a huge role in the way we perceive underrepresented groups. From slavery to segregation, to the inequality in compensation for women and people of color, to the refusal to wed same sex couples, discrimination and opposition has plagued the United States for decades. Since the Civil Rights Movement, discrimination towards underrepresented groups has shifted from overt acts to subtle and semiconscious manifestations called microaggressions. These manifestations reside in well-intentioned individuals who are often unaware of their biased beliefs, attitudes, and actions. They can lead to inequities within our relationships and affect our work productivity.

scholarly journals Couple-Level Minority Stress and Mental Health among People in Same-Sex Relationships: Extending Minority Stress Theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen J. LeBlanc ◽  
David M. Frost
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Minority Stress ◽  
Depressive Symptomatology ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Stress Theory ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Minority Stress Theory

We simultaneously examined the effects of individual- and couple-level minority stressors on mental health among people in same-sex relationships. Individual-level minority stressors emerge from the stigmatization of sexual minority individuals; couple-level minority stressors emerge from the stigmatization of same-sex relationships. Dyadic data from 100 same-sex couples from across the United States were analyzed with actor–partner interdependence models. Couple-level stigma was uniquely associated with nonspecific psychological distress, depressive symptomatology, and problematic drinking, net the effects of individual-level stigma and relevant sociodemographic controls. Analyses also show that couple-level minority stress played unique roles in critical stress processes of minority stress proliferation: minority stress expansion and minority stress contagion. The inclusion of couple-level stress constructs represents a useful extension of minority stress theory, enriching our capacity to deepen understandings of minority stress experience and its application in the study of well-being and health inequalities faced by vulnerable populations.

Sexuality, Third-Party Harms, and the “Live-and-Let-Live” Approach to Religious Exemptions

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Carlos A. Ball
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Religious Dissent ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Antidiscrimination Law ◽  
Bisexual And Transgender ◽  
History Of

For several years now, a group of prominent religious liberty scholars in the United States have been defending what they call a “live-and-let-live” approach to accommodating religious dissent in the era of marriage equality. The proposed approach calls on the state to avoid taking sides on contested moral issues when individuals of faith claim that their religious beliefs require them to refrain from facilitating marriages by same-sex couples. The objective, it is argued, is to adopt policies that allow both sides to live according to their values. This article critiques the “live-and-let-live” solution to religious exemptions from LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) equality measures by focusing on questions of harms. It argues that the proposed approach calls for a weighing of harms that is largely unprecedented in the history of American antidiscrimination law and problematic in its own right. The article also explains that the approach is premised on questionable assumptions and predictions about the absence of any meaningful harm to LGBT individuals when business owners provide goods and services to the general public, but refuse to do so for same-sex couples on religious grounds.

scholarly journals Evaluating The Economic Impact Of Marriage Versus Cohabitation In Same-Sex Couples Age 50+

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 876-876
Author(s):  
Setarreh Massihzadegan ◽  
Jan Mutchler
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Marital Status ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples

Abstract Utilizing the first set of 5-year American Community Survey data available since the United States’ legalization of same-sex marriage in mid-2015, this poster investigates the economic security of older adults (age 50+) in same-sex marriages compared to those in same-sex partnerships who are cohabiting but not married. Viewed through the lens of cumulative disadvantage theory, we consider differences in the economic circumstances of same-sex couples by gender and by geographic location. Findings point to gender differences in economic well-being, but relatively few differences based on marital status. For example, rates of low income are somewhat higher among female couples than among their male counterparts, but marital status differences are not substantial. These findings suggest that the benefits of being married that have long been recognized among older adults may not extend equally to same-sex couples. Findings are discussed with respect to the emerging salience of marriage within the LGBTQ older community, future research opportunities, and important policy implications.

scholarly journals Potential differences between the political attitudes of people with same-sex parents and people with different-sex parents: An exploratory assessment of first-year college students

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0246929
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Flores ◽  
Maisy Morrison
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
College Students ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
First Year ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
First Year College ◽  
First Year College Students ◽  
Same Sex Parents

Children were often near the center of public debates about legal marriage recognition for same-sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case that resulted in legal same-sex marriage recognition, stressed the importance of these children as one of many factors compelling the opinion. Estimates indicated same-sex couples were raising 200,000 children in the United States. Children raised by same-sex couples may be politically socialized in distinct ways compared to children of different-sex couples because lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals tend to hold distinct and progressive political viewpoints on a wide variety of issues. What are the political attitudes of people with same-sex parents? In this exploratory study, we analyze a large, representative survey of first-year college students across the United States; we find few differences between people with same-sex and different-sex parents, and some of those differences may be attributable to households and respondent characteristics. When on the rare occasion a difference exists, we find that people with same-sex female parents are more progressive, but people with same-sex male parents are more conservative. Gender differences also emerged, with some distinctive patterns between males with same-sex parents and females with same-sex parents.

The Intersection of LGBT Rights and Religious Beliefs in the United States

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily R. Gill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lgbt Individuals

Tension has long existed in the United State between the equality claims of LGBT individuals, on the one hand, and free exercise claims by those who hold that compelling equal treatment violates their convictions, on the other. This tension increased, however, after the United States Supreme Court extended marriage equality to same-sex couples nationwide. Equality advocates hold that antidiscrimination laws simply allow LGBT individuals to enjoy the same rights as others. Many religious advocates, however, believe that they are being prohibited from living out the implications of their conscientious beliefs. Neutrality between these conflicting claims cannot be achieved, as policies that appear neutral to one group appear non-neutral to the other. Private voluntary organizations are one site of conflict. Although private organizations should not typically be forced to reflect the values of the larger society, not all organizations are similarly situated within it. Groups such as the Boy Scouts should be able to exclude at will. Public authority does not itself always support the values of free and equal citizenship, and organizations may evolve over time as the Scouts itself has done. Organizations that exist within larger entities, however, fall into a different category. The Supreme Court was correct to uphold Hastings Law School in forcing the Christian Legal Society as a registered student organization to admit all comers. These groups also represent the values of a public entity and can continue to operate as independent entities if they so choose. The provision of services in connection with same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies has been another site of conflict. In Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop (2015), the Supreme Court found narrowly that bakery owner Phillips could refuse to create cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, as the state of Colorado had displayed animus toward Phillips’s religious beliefs. Commercial establishments, however, are public accommodations and generally should not be allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of their identities. Discrimination against the activity or conduct of formal commitment is also discrimination against the identity or status of a same-sex couple. These kinds of cases do not admit of neutral solutions. Some suggest that those with religious reservations could advertise that they do not serve same-sex couples, but this is reminiscent of Jim Crow in the post–Civil War South. Jurisdictional pluralists suggest that the government designate a sphere of noninterference as a jurisdictional boundary that it will not cross. Thus individuals and associations with religious commitments would be free to pursue these interests with minimal interference. However, a prior authoritative structure must exist to define the nature and scope of this jurisdiction, just as the Constitution defines the relationships between the national government and the states. Applications for religious exemptions should not be treated more generously when they conflict with LGBT equality concerns than with equality claims based on race or gender. Although religious individuals and groups should be able to exercise their religious convictions within their areas of competence, in a liberal society and state they cannot define the limits of these areas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document