For our final course topic this week, we are discussing two more “alternatives” to the traditional married couple family: stepfamilies (sometimes called “blended” or “reconstituted” families to avoid what is seen as implying an inferior or secondary status) and gay and lesbian families. Some people feel these families are not “true” families, although I think they clearly are based on the sociological definition of a family we discussed in the first week of the course. I would rather focus on the barriers, issues, and problems these groups face in trying to function as families in society, and potential policies and solutions to help these families function better. I think this is a main theme of the readings this week, especially the Mason reading regarding stepfamilies. Let’s start by focusing on gay and lesbian families. As discussed in the lecture notes, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage. Despite this, are there still challenge and issues that gay and lesbian families face in our society? What are they, and are there policies or other solutions that would help them function better? LECTURE NOTES BLENDED FAMILLIES AND GAY/LESBIAN FAMILIES This week we consider two alternatives to the conventional two-parent nuclear family, stepfamilies (or blended families) and gay and lesbian families, both of which are on the rise in society. We will look at the reasons for their increase, whether they constitute a decline in the family, and policies to help them function more effectively. The learning outcomes this week are to: Consider diversity among stepfamilies Understand outcomes for children in stepfamilies Understand some of the parenting challenges that stepfamilies face Explain the increase in same-sex families and the different ways they are formed Explain the rise of marital rights for same-sex couples Understand ongoing challenges that same-sex families face Understand outcomes for children in same-sex families Consider solutions to help stepfamilies function more effectively Consider solutions to help same-sex families function more effectively I. Stepfamilies or Blended Families or Reconstituted Families The changes in marriage and the family that have occurred with industrialization and post-industrialism have led to significant changes in the nature and number of blended families. In pre-industrial times, blended families were more often formed as a result of widowhood. Women frequently died during childbirth, and men remarried because they needed a wife and children to help support the household. The stepmother would have little authority over existing children in a patriarchal house and would want children of her own, giving rise to negative stereotypes of wicked stepmothers. With the decline in maternal mortality and mortality rates more generally, blended families in the 20th century were increasingly formed as a result of remarriage after a divorce, rather than widowhood. However, in part because divorce rates in the early part of the 20th century were still relatively low, the percentage of blended families was also relatively low. Moreover, because of negative attitudes towards divorce in society, blended families were often viewed with stigma in society. Today, the rise in divorce and non-marital births has led to a significant increase in the percentage of blended families, especially because 75% of all divorced persons remarry, accounting for 43% of all marriages (https://steppinstones.tripod.com/facts.html). Indeed, 1 out of 3 Americans is now a stepparent, a stepchild, a stepsibling, or some other member of a blended family (https://steppinstones.tripod.com/facts.html). With growing acceptance of divorce and non-marital births, stigma towards blended families has also declined. In addition to these changes in blended families over time, there are also important differences among blended families in terms of whether the stepparent has their own children or not, and whether those children are custodial or not. This produces a variety of different blended family forms: One of the parents has no children of their own One of the parents has a non-custodial relationship with children from a previous marriage, but the children do not live in the household with the parents Each of the parents have children of their own from previous marriages who live with them in the household, meaning that another parent is potentially involved and that the children potentially belong to two households The couple has their own children in addition to children from previous marriages Whether the couple officially remarry or simply cohabitate An important issue in debates over the decline of the family is how well alternative families like single parent families, blended families, and gay and lesbian families function compared to two-parent nuclear families. On one hand, blended families have some advantages over single parent families, such as higher incomes and two parents for housework and childcare. However, in many ways blended families do not perform as well as two parent nuclear families: Stepchildren often perform behaviorally, academically, and psychologically like children of single parent families rather than children from 2 parent nuclear families, even though they are much better off economically than children in single-parent families (Amato, 2005; Zill, 2014) Stepfamilies have higher rates of divorce than 2 parent nuclear families (60% end in divorce) Relationships between stepparents and stepchildren are much weaker over the life course than relationships between biological parents and children There are several reasons for these poorer behavioral outcomes for children: Step-parents may be less psychologically and economically invested in the welfare of their step-children Birth parents may become less psychologically and economically invested in their own children in order to meet demands and expectations from their new spouse (and his/her children) Conflicts between children and step-parents Growing conflicts between children and birth parents over the new family situation Growing conflicts between step-parents, custodial parents, and non-custodial parents over child-rearing issues Overall, blended families often face unique issues concerning parental roles and authority and childrearing strategies that two-parent nuclear families usually do not face. This includes things such as: creating and maintaining consistent rules for children from different stepparents issues concerning stepchildren accepting the stepparents role and authority within the family agreement between stepparents on appropriate child-rearing goals and techniques Limited parenting experiencing in cases where the stepparent has not had children of his or her own These issues can be compounded by the presence of the other birth parent, who may have some custodial rights and who promotes different rules and child-rearing techniques, leaving those children with different rules to live by. They can also be affected by the age and sex of the children. Research suggests that adolescents find it more difficult to adjust than younger children, especially adolescent girls when stepfathers are involved, as is usually the case (Arnold, 1998). One problem that blended families have in dealing with these unique challenges is that they few rules and social norms to govern how they operate. Blended families are sometimes referred to as a normless normalthough they have become increasingly common and even accepted in many ways, there are no clear rules and norms (or societal scripts) that govern how they function, including a lack of laws defining parental authority and financial obligations. This lack of laws and role models reflects a lack of societal consensus on these issues, and a preference for letting individual families arrive at their own solutions to these issues. However, at the same time, the lack of social norms, especially laws governing legal rights and obligations, limits the ability of families to arrive at viable solutions, as the Mason reading this week suggests. In addition to facing these issues regarding parenting and parental authority, stepchildren may face other social and psychological issues adjusting to their new stepfamily (Amato, 2005): Children may have to relocate Children may experience loyalty conflicts between their stepparent and non-custodial birth parent Children may become jealous sharing time and attention with the stepparent Remarriage may end any lingering hopes that the birth parents will reconcile A key issue in the success of blended families is the ability of the step-parent to take on true parental role with legitimate authority and influence over children. As just described, this is often a difficult process that is affected by the route a family took to becoming a blended family, the specific type of blended family involved, and the age and sex of the children, as well as individual attitudes and behaviors of the people involved. Some say a key factor is the flexibility of parents in accepting and accommodating new and unconventional family arrangements. Some have argued that African-American families are advantaged in this respect because they tend to have greater experience with and acceptance of fluid and permeable family boundaries, and are less committed to the 2 parent nuclear family ideal. In fact, several studies have suggested that stepfathers in African-American families play a particularly beneficial role for children, as compared to the effects of stepfathers in White families (Amato, 2005). Overall, despite these various obstacles and issues, the negative effects of stepfamilies can easily be overstated. First, as with children in single-parent families, even though behavioral outcomes for children are worse overall, most children in stepfamilies are doing fine (Zill, 2014; Arnold, 1998). Second, again, as with children in single-parent families, some of the reason that children in stepfamilies do worse than children in two parent, nuclear families may reflect problems and conflicts from the initial marriage and divorce, rather than problems and limitations with the stepfamilies per se. Third, as with divorce, the outcomes of stepfamilies can be highly variable, depending on the composition of the family, and especially the age and sex of the children, and the attitudes and decisions of the various family members (Amato, 2014). Overall, although the transition to a step family can be difficult, especially for adolescents, many families ultimately make this transition successfully. As Amato (2005) describes it: Although relationships in many stepfamilies are tense, stepparents are still able to make positive contributions to their stepchildren’s lives. If stepfamilies survive the early crisis stage, then close and supportive relationships between stepparents and stepchildren often develop. Research suggests that these relationships can serve as important resources for children’s development and emotional well-being. II. Gay/Lesbian Families Another type of family that has been increasing in recent decades are gay/lesbian families. Precise estimates of the number of gay and lesbian families are somewhat difficult to obtain. Data from the 2010 Census suggest there were approximately 594,000 same-sex couple households in the . in 2010 (Lofquist, 2011), an increase of % from 2000, with some estimates being higher (see Over 125,000 same-sex couple households (19%) include nearly 220,000 children under age 18, and more than 111,000 same-sex couples are raising an estimated 170,000 biological, step, or adopted children. It has been estimated that there are up to 2 million children under 18 being raised by a gay or lesbian parent overall (cite). It has also been estimated that there are up to six million children and adults have an LGBT parent (Gates, 2013). Same-sex families with children are formed in different ways. While many of the children in these families were born when their parents were in a heterosexual relationship, in the last decade there has been a sharp rise among same sex couples planning and forming families through adoption, foster care, donor insemination, and surrogacy. In fact, according to . Census Bureau estimates, the number of same-sex couples who have adopted children tripled from 6,477 couples in 2000 to 21,740 in 2009 (The Williams Institute, 2011). The legal status of gay marriage in the . has undergone dramatic changes within a relatively short period of time. In 1996, the federal government adopted The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during the Clinton administration, which defined marriage solely as a union between an opposite sex couple for all federal purposes and allowed for the non-recognition of same-sex marriage by the states. Despite DOMA, gay marriage became legal in a number of states, starting with Massachusetts in 2003. In some of these initial cases, gay marriage became legal as a result of the decisions of state supreme courts, which declared that gay couples had a constitutional right to marriage. In California, the State Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage was actually overturned by a popular referendum. However, increasingly some state governments began to approve the right of gay couples to marry, especially in more liberal states in the country. Nevertheless, gay marriage remained illegal in most states, and several state Supreme Courts upheld bans against gay marriage. (You can see a timeline of gay marriage rights at or Starting in 2013, the . Supreme Court made a couple of key decisions that have led to the legalization of gay marriage throughout the country. In 2013, the . Supreme Court made an important step towards the legalization of gay marriage when it ruled The Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. By overturning DOMA, the Supreme Court required the federal government to accept gay marriages in states where it was legal. Following this Supreme Court decision, a number of state Supreme Courts overturned state bans against gay marriage. As a result, there was a significant increase in the number of states allowing same-sex marriage, with 35 states plus the District of Columbia allowing same sex-marriages by 2015. (For a discussion of the status of gay marriage, see Finally, in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that all state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. These changes in the legal status of same-sex marriage have been accompanied by significant changes in public attitudes in favor of gay marriage. As of the 1990s, most Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage. However, a number of studies show that the majority of Americans overall now seem to be in favor of gay marriage (see the discussion in Moreover, studies suggest that younger generations in particular favor same-sex marriage, suggesting that it will continue to become more accepted and legitimate in the future (Pew Research Center, 2015). Despite the legalization of same-sex marriage and the shift in popular attitudes in support of it, gay couples still face a number of social and legal challenges in their efforts to form and maintain families. First, while popular opinion overall has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage, many people continue to oppose it. Attitudes also vary considerably at the state level, with public opinion opposed to same-sex marriage in many states (see Walthall and Piacenza, 2015). As a result, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage is not always accepted as legitimate, especially in some states. An example of this involves the case of Kim Davis, a county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who stopped issuing marriage licenses on the grounds that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples violated her religious beliefs. Although one poll showed that most Americans disagreed with her actions and thought she should resign, a significant percentage also agreed with her (Edwards-Levy, 2015). There has also been a movement to allow businesses not to serve gay couples based on their religious beliefs. Specifically, after the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same sex marriage, the state of Indiana passed a law in May of 2015 permitting businesses to not serve gays and lesbians. Most Americans oppose discrimination of this nature (see Jones, 2015), and Indianas law has not yet been upheld in courts. However, in the important Hobby Lobby decision in June of 2014, the Supreme Court said that the owners of certain corporations did not have to provide health insurance to its employees that included coverage for contraception if doing so violated the beliefs of the corporations owners. As a result, the status of the Indiana law remains unclear. Finally, there are some ongoing issues concerning rights to adoption. While same-sex couples have long been able to adopt from private, gay-friendly adoption agencies, states have not always allowed same-sex couples to adopt children from the foster care system. In fact, prior to the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, 12 states did not allow same-sex couples to adopt children jointly. Since the Supreme Court decision, this situation has changed. Mississippi is the only state that is attempting to maintain a ban against adoption by same-sex couples, and this is currently being challenged in the courts. However, other issues regarding adoption rights remain. First, several states do not allow for second parent or co-parent adoption by a same-sex partner. A second parent adoption (also called a co-parent adoption) is a legal procedure that allows a same-sex parent, regardless of whether they have a legally recognized relationship to the other parent, to adopt her or his partner’s biological or adoptive child without terminating the first parents legal status as a parent. In other words, it allows a same-sex partner to become recognized as a second parent. In several states, second parent adoptions by a same-sex partner who is not married to or in a civil union with their partner is not permitted, even when it is permitted for individuals in heterosexual relationships. In addition, some states have taken up legislation that would allow taxpayer-funded contractors that oversee state adoptions to refuse to let gay or lesbian individuals adopt children if it conflicts with the organizations religious beliefs. Michigan passed such a law right before the court decision (Beitsch, 2015). This is despite the fact that Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents (The Williams Institute, 2007). Especially before the legalization of same-sex marriage, some people who were opposed to same-sex marriage were willing to accept states allow for civil unions between same-sex couples rather than marriage. However, these civil unions generally do not grant the full range of rights that legal marriage does, including important federal rights regarding taxes and government benefits. For example, civil unions do not necessarily provide: Tax benefits for married couples Social Security benefits go to partner in case of death of other partner or Medicaid paying for nursing home care for partner Insurance benefits for partners and partners children Ability to get mortgages and loans from banks Decision-making and visitation rights during health care Ability to take family and medical leave. ., first example of not being able to attend a funeral The lack of these rights are important barriers and constraints on same sex families. For example, because of the lack of access to a partners health insurance, Social Security benefits, pensions, retirement funds, rights to alimony and property in case of divorce, etc., same sex couples may each have to work to maintain their individual benefit levels, rather than being able to engage in a division of labor where one parent might stay at home and be more responsible for child care. Lack of guardian rights in case of terminal illness, control of estates, and custodial rights to children are also highly problematic. In cases where one partner lacks custodial rights over the children, same sex families can experience some of the same problems that blended families experience. Some of the opposition to same sex marriage is clearly of a moral or normative nature. Some of this reflects attitudes towards and opposition to homosexuality in general. However, opposition to same sex marriage is also related to values and beliefs about the family. Opponents often describe gay marriage as a threat to marriage and the family in general, with the explicit assumption that marriage that is a heterosexual institution between a man and a woman. Indeed, as the Stacey reading argues, even some radical gay activists oppose gay marriage because like some feminists, they see it as an inherently patriarchal, repressive, and gendered institution. Some LGBT and Queer Theory critics also argue that same-sex marriage reinforces marriage privileges that reward and legitimize certain relationships and sexual behaviors while marginalizing and stigmatizing others (see Polikoff, 2009; LaSala, 2011). However, opposition to same sex marriage is also based on empirical arguments that same sex families function poorly relative to heterosexual two parent families. This includes that gays and lesbians are unfit parents or lack necessary parenting skills, that children raised by same sex parents will experience problems regarding their sexual identity (and in particular that they will be more likely to become homosexual) or other psychological and developmental problems, and that children will suffer socially as a result of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination in the larger society. Extensive research has shown all of these claims are false. Not only are gays and lesbians competent and capable parents, but same sex couples may even be superior to heterosexual couples in some respects, such as using more positive disciplinary techniques or greater awareness of their childrens needs. Lesbian couples in particular have been found to have excellent parenting skills, be more egalitarian, and have more congenial relationships with ex-spouses, all of which generally has positive outcomes for children. Indeed, as the Stacey reading suggests, same sex couples probably have stronger relationships and commitments in some respects because they have had to reflect much more self-consciously on the meaning and purpose of their commitments and their decision to have and raise children, given their oppression in society. Supporting these findings, research has found no significant differences in personal development and emotional well-being shown between children of same-sex parents and children of heterosexual couples. Research has found no significant differences in terms of gender identity and behavior or sexual orientation. Finally, research has shown that despite instances of prejudice and discrimination, children of same sex couples generally have positive relationships with peers and adults of both sexes. (For a thorough review of an extensive body of psychological literature on the functioning gay and lesbian families, see In fact, restrictions on same sex marriage are harmful to children in various ways. As with blended families, a partner who leaves same sex union has no obligation to provide financial support to former partner and child. A partner without custodial rights also has no guarantee of custody if the custodial parent dies. Restrictions on same sex adoption clearly hurt children by limiting the number of children who could be adopted instead of being raised in less desirable and functional foster care or state care arrangements. A possible unintended consequence of legalized same sex marriage may be the creation of clearer divisions of labor between partners. As just noted, same sex couples, especially lesbian couples, tend to be more egalitarian than heterosexual couples. This is undoubtedly because societal beliefs about gender and gender roles do not apply to same sex couples in the same way they do to heterosexual couples. As I suggested earlier in the course, societal beliefs about gender and gender roles provide scripts for heterosexual couples that emphasize the provider role for men and encourage women to be more responsible for the home and childcare. While not all people follow these beliefs, they serve as guidelines and norms that that many people follow and accept. However, as suggested above, it is possible that some of the greater egalitarianism of same sex couples is also due to the fact that both spouses have to work because they are unable to share or pool benefits. If marriage becomes legal and spouses become able to share and pool benefits, then it is possible that clearer divisions of labor will emerge to some degree. III. Weekly Readings The Stacey reading provides an excellent overview of issues facing same sex families that I will not attempt to summarize here. As I have suggested, solutions to help same sex families are fairly straightforwardbasically just legalizing marriage rights at the federal levelalthough this will not necessarily address prejudice and discrimination that gay and lesbian families face, including potentially from families as discussed in the Rosenfeld reading. The Mason reading suggests that addressing problems and issues affecting blended families is considerably more difficult. The reading says state laws currently follow a stranger model in which the stepparent is a legal stranger with no rights and responsibilities vs. children. For example, the step-parent has no financial rights during or after marriage, in the case of divorce or the death of the biological parent. The common law tradition allows for stepparents to gain parental rights and obligations, but this is voluntary and support is terminated by divorce or death of custodial parent. Federal programs follow a dependency model which assumes that step-parents provide financial support to their children (largely so the government does not have to), but they do not really require them to do so. Again, no support is required or expected in cases of divorce or the death of the biological parent. What are the three camps or groups proposing policy regarding blended families and what types of policies does each camp or group advocate? 1) Negativists: See stepfamilies as problematic and need to be actively discouraged; two-parent, biological families are better and will provide better care to children (this reflects more conservative views on the family) 2) Voluntarists: (the largest group) See stepfamily relationships as complex and distant; law and policy should adhere to stranger model, since stepfamilies are based on legal marital bond between man and woman, with no legal relationship between stepparent and children. Stepfamilies are neither condoned nor condemnedjust a fact of life. Better to leave to voluntary arrangements of persons involved. 3) Reformists: Change law to clearly define rights and responsibilities of stepparents in terms of child support, authority within family, visitation, and custody in case of divorce. ., Children Act of 1989 in England actually allows for three adults to have responsibility over parent. Reasons for reformist policy: 1) Provide financial support for children in case of break-up of step family due to divorce or death of biological parent 2) Help provide child support where in cases of dead-beat dads 3) Strengthen relationship of stepparent and stepchild 4) Make stepparent more credible parent and member of the family 5) Adoption not a feasible policy, since most non-custodial parents do not terminate their rights Problems with the reformist approach: 1) Multiple parenting 2) Financial support for child may be reduced in some cases (but few) 3) Might diminish role/involvement of non-custodial parent (although maybe not involved much anyway) 4) May discourage remarriage (although may make remarriage more successful with less divorce) One issue is what difference these changes would make, or whether they would just formalize patterns and relationships people are adopting voluntarily. Would they make blended families more stable and committed or less? IV. Bibliography Amato, P. (2014) Implications and Research Findings, in Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., New York: Routledge Press. Amato, P. (2005) The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, Marriage and Child Well-Being, 15, 2, on-line at American Psychological Association. (2005) Lesbian and Gay Parenting. Washington, . Arnold, C. (1998) Children and Stepfamilies: A Snapshot, Center for Law and Social Policy, on-line at Beitsch, R. (2015) Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, Gay Adoption Rights Uncertain in Some States, The Pew Charitable Trusts, at Edwards-Levy, A. (2015) Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows, The Huffington Post, September 9, 2015, at Gates, G (2013) LGBT Parenting in the ., The Williams Institute, on-line at Jones, R. (2015) After Same-Sex Marriage, Then What?, The Atlantic, June 24, 2015, LaSala, M. (2011) Same-Sex Marriage: A Queer Critique, Psychology Today, June Lofquist, D. (2011) Same-Sex Couple Housholds, . Census Bureau, ACSBR/10-03, at Maxwell, L. (2008) Collection Development Gay Parenting: Building Rainbow Families, Library Journal at Pew Research Center. (2015) Support for Same-Sex Marriage at Record High, but Key Segments Remain Opposed, Pew Research Center, June 8, 2015, at Polikoff, N. (2009) Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. Beacon Press. Walthall, J. and Piacenza, J. (2015) Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage in Every State, Public Religion Research Institute, at Wikipedia. (2011) LGBT Adoption, at The Williams Institute (2011) Gay Adoptions Skyrocketing in United States, October 25, 2011. The Williams Institute (2007). Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States, March 2007. Zill, N. (2014) Understanding Why Children in Stepfamilies Have More Learning and Behavioral Problems than Children in Stepfamilies, in Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., New York: Routledge Press.
Hide
