Introduction to the Special Issue: Intersectional Variations in the Experiences of Queer Families

• Date: 01 February 2018
• Published date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12305
• Author: Brad van Eeden‐Moorefield

B  E-M Montclair State University

Introduction to the Special Issue: Intersectional

Variations in the Experiences of Queer Families

The study of queer lives, families, and com-

munities has a fairly long history across mul-

tiple disciplines, albeit primarily grounded in

decit and other pathological perspectives (van

Eeden-Mooreeld & Alvarez, 2015). Such per-

spectives held that homosexuality was a men-

tal condition to be cured and, once cured, for-

mer homosexuals could then enjoy a normal

life (Morin, 1977; note the term homosexuality

now is considered pejorative but is used here,

along with others, such as opposite-sex rather

than different-sex, for historical accuracy). That

is, they could marry someone of the so-called

opposite-sex, have children, engage in produc-

tive employment, and otherwise embrace a het-

eronormative life. Here, heteronormativity is an

ideology that supports and perpetuates hetero-

sexuality as the ideal. Further, the Standard

North American Family (SNAF; Smith, 1993)

asserts a heteronormative ideal of family (i.e.,

rst-married opposite-sex couple, middle-class,

White, with children, homeowners, traditional

gender roles, happy, monogamous, and harmo-

nious) and perpetuates the notion of a monolithic

family to which everyone should aspire. Sim-

ilarly, the queer community often is seen as a

monolithic group of individuals incapable of cre-

ating families, and when they do, the families

created are considered decient (i.e., dysfunc-

tion, prone to dissolution; Demo & Allen, 1996;

Paterson & Sexton, 2013).

Department of Family Science and Human Development,

4034 University Hall, Montclair State University,Montclair,

NJ 07043 (vaneedenmobr@montclair.edu).

Key Words: LGBT Issues, Relationships.

Towardthe end of the 1980s, several scholars

shifted the literature from an individualistic view

of homosexuals to a more relational one that con-

sidered same-sex couples. Often this research

focused on mate selection and early relation-

ship development (e.g., Kurdek, 1988), whereas

the other main lines of research followed a

comparative approach between gay and lesbian

couples and various types of different-sex cou-

ples (cohabiting, married, those with children;

e.g., Kurdek, 1994) with an underlying assump-

tion that these comparisons were of the “ap-

ples to apples” variety. Doing so perpetuated

an idea of a monolithic gay family (White,

middle-class, educated, cohabiting gay and les-

bian couples without children and with dis-

posable income). The monolithic, comparative

approach to research expanded during the 1990s

but also shifted slightly to include same-sex cou-

ples, primarily White lesbian couples, with chil-

dren (Patterson, 2000). My intent in mentioning

this is to be directly critical of this research for

its heteronormative bias. However, I also deeply

respect this scholarship and the role it played in

garnering greater visibility and legal rights for

queers and queer families. Essentially,I see these

studies as “playing the game” with larger institu-

tional systems (Halberstam, 2012). It is unfortu-

nate that such strategies of identity politics were,

and are, needed.

With increased visibility and research dur-

ing the 1990s, the Journal of Marriage and

Family Decade in Review included an article

entirely devoted to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender (LGBT) families for the rst time

(Patterson, 2000). Again in the 2010 decade

in review, Biblarz and Savci wrote specically

Family Relations 67 (February 2018): 7–11 7

DOI:10.1111/fare.12305