Expanding the Therapy Paradigm with Queer Couples: A Relational Intersectional Lens

• Published date: 01 September 2015
• Author: Sheila M. Addison,Deborah Coolhart
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12171
• Date: 01 September 2015

Expanding the Therapy Paradigm with Queer

Couples: A Relational Intersectional Lens

SHEILA M. ADDISON*

DEBORAH COOLHART

†

North American and global cultures in general—and the field of Couple and Family

Therapy in particular—have made significant strides toward recognizing and validat-

ing LGBTQ identities and relationships. However, clinical assessment and conceptual-

ization of queer couples still lack the complexity needed to encompass the issues

involved in treatment. Existing literature provides clinicians a basic understanding of

queer couples and the dynamics that make them unique from nonqueer couples. How-

ever, much of this knowledge has been normed on White middle-class couples and has

rarely included couples with transgender or bisexual members. This article invites clin-

icians and researchers to apply a feminist model of intersectionality to understand

queer couples. Our proposed intersectional lens considers multiple axes of identity and

power and their interrelationships (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). We argue that intersection-

ality is important for understanding all identities, whether privileged or marginalized

(Falicov, 2003). This application of the concept of intersectionality is unique in its rela-

tional focus, emphasizing how partners’ complex individual identities overlap with and

intersect with one another. Additionally, this lens considers how the therapists’ and cli-

ents’ multidimensional identities intersect. Three case studies are presen ted to illustrate

application of the intersectional lens. In each case, exploring the partners’ multiple

social locations, their influences on one another, and the therapist’s intersections of

identity all proved critical to the direction of therapy.

Keywords: Queer couples; Same-sex couples; Lesbian couples; Gay couples; LGBT

affirmative therapy; Gay affirmative therapy

Fam Proc 54:435–453, 2015

INTRODUCTION

The past decade has been a period of rapid, dramatic change for queer couples in North

America. Since Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex mar-

riage in 2002, 35 other U.S. states have joined it as of March 2015—a number that has

doubled just between the first and final drafts of this article. The U.S. Supreme Court has

agreed to consider arguments regarding whether states can refuse to license same-sex

marriages, and whether they can refuse to acknowledge marriages from other states, on

*Clinical Counseling M.A. Program, California School of Professional Psychology, AlliantInternational Univer-

sity, San Francisco, CA.

†

Department of Marriage & Family Therapy, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sheila M. Addison, Clinical Counseling

M.A. Program, California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Fran-

cisco, CA. E-mail: sheila.m.addison@gmail.com or Deborah Coolhart, Department of Marriage & Family

Therapy, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. E-mail: dcoole@syr.edu

435

Family Process, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2015 ©2015 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12171

April 28, 2015. This review has the potential for a broad overturn of similar laws across

the U.S. Court decisions in Canadian provinces and territories beginning in 2003 spread

marriage equality to much of the nation before the 2005 Civil Marriage Act extended it to

all Canadians.

1

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2011 that the Obama

administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, believing its

ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. Subsequently,

the 2013 United States vs. Windsor decision by the U.S. Supreme Court vacated Section 3

of DOMA, opening the door to equal treatment of married queer couples with regard to

benefits for veterans, Social Security survivors, inheritance tax, and other federal adv an-

tages given to marrie d couples. September 2013 also marked 2 years since the end of

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the U.S. policy excluding gay, lesbian, and bisexual people from

open service in the Armed Forces. Combined with the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA , the

intervening years have seen the gradual extension of spousal and family benefits to same-

sex partners of service members.

However, there are still many social and economic challenges facing North American

queer couples. Canada has passed laws permitting adoption by gay couples and same-sex

“second parents,” and forbidding discrimination in employment, housing, and public

accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The country also has comprehensive

human rights laws in each territory and province, but only a few explicitly encompass pro-

tections on the basis of gender identity. At the same time, there are still disparities

between the legal age of consent for heterosexual intercourse and anal sex, and significant

incidence of bullying, depression, and suicide experienced by LGBT youth.

The United States has even more inconsistencies, lacking a federal hate crimes statute

covering anti-GLBTQ violence, and also lacking an omnibus federal law banning discrimi-

nation in employment and housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity/

expression, as there is for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex , age, national

original, religion, and ability/disability status.

Adoption rights for queer couples vary widely from state to state, and 33 state s still lack

a legal path to same-sex marriage, with 26 of them taking the belt-and-suspenders

approach of enshrining same-sex marriage bans in both state law and the state constitu-

tion. At the same time, a May 2013 Gallup poll showed 53% of respondents were in favor

of a hypothetical law that would legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states, a number that

has doubled since 1996 (Jones, 2013). As of February 2014, 18 separate lower court rulings

regarding gay, lesbian, and bisexual equality have been issued in the 8 months since the

Windsor decision, all of which have been decided in favor of sexual minorities. To be a

queer couple in the United States at the time of this writing is to always wonder which

way the political winds will blow next.

Transgender people and their partners live with even more uncertainty and inconsis-

tency under the law. Transgender people are a less protected class under federal law in

the United States and are also less protected against discrimination at the state level.

Many states that extend protection against housing and employment discrimination for

sexual minorities do not cover gender identity, making it legal to term inate employees or

evict tenants for being transgender. In the United States and Canada, laws regarding the

1

The laws and regulations concerning queer civil rights are changing rapidly and readers should consult

the following organizations’ websites for updated information about these civil rights: Human Rights Cam-

paign (hrc.org) for information about all queer rights in the United States; Freedom to Marry (freedom-

tomarry.org) for information about same-sex marriage rights in the United States; and International Gay

and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (iglhrc.org) and International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and

Intersex Association (ilga.org) for information about international queer rights.

www.FamilyProcess.org

436

/

FAMILY PROCESS