Content uploaded by P. J. Lannutti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by P. J. Lannutti on Aug 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://spr.sagepub.com/
Relationships
Journal of Social and Personal
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/22/1/5
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0265407505049319 2005 22: 5Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Pamela J. Lannutti
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community
For better or worse: Exploring the meanings of same-sex marriage within the
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Relationship Research
can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for
http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/22/1/5.refs.htmlCitations:
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
For better or worse: Exploring the
meanings of same-sex marriage
within the lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgendered community
Pamela J. Lannutti
Boston College
ABSTRACT
This study examines how gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-
gendered (LGBT) men and women assign meaning to legally
recognized same-sex marriage and its impact on their under-
standing of the LGBT community. Open-ended web-based
survey questions asked participants (N= 288) to consider the
ways in which legally recognizing same-sex marriage may
positively and negatively affect the LGBT community. The
understanding of legally recognized same-sex marriage that
emerges is multilayered, with an overarching theme of
equality forming a surface over deeper dialectical themes
describing tensions in the perceived influence of same-sex
marriage on same-sex romantic relationships, the LGBT
community, and the relationship between the LGBT
community and heterosexual others. The findings of the
study suggest that same-sex marriage should be considered
as a context for all future discussions of married and un-
married same-sex partnerships.
KEY WORDS: dialectics • gay and lesbian relationships • same-sex
marriage
On November 18, 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)
declared that it could find no ‘constitutionally adequate reason for denying
civil marriage to same-sex couples,’ and ordered the state to begin issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a 180-day stay period
(Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 2003). The SJC decision marked a
turning point in the fight for and against same-sex marriage that had been
occurring across the US for nearly a decade (Alderson & Lahey, 2004;
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications
(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 22(1): 5–18. DOI: 10.1177/0265407505049319
All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Pamela Lannutti, Depart-
ment of Communication, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467,
USA [e-mail: lannutpa@bc.edu]. Sally Lloyd was the Action Editor on this article.
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 5
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Purcell, 1998). Although other states and municipalities had been legally
issuing same-sex couples protective civil rights for several years (see
Human Rights Campaign, n.d. and Purcell, 1998, for reviews), the SJC
decision marked the first time that same-sex partners would be legally
granted the same civil marriage protections as heterosexual couples.
Immediately following this historic decision, the popular media erupted
with discussion and debate on the legal and moral implications of this shift
in the definition of marriage, but the relational, identity, and cultural impli-
cations of the decision for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
(LGBT) community received little attention. Although previous studies
have examined how LGBT people make sense of heterosexual weddings
and marriage (Oswald, 2000, 2002) and nonmarital forms of same-sex
committed relationships (e.g. Haley-Banez & Garrett, 2002; Slater, 1995;
Stiers, 1999), never before have researchers been able to examine how
LGBT people assign meaning to legally recognized same-sex marriage
while experiencing this large-scale social change.
This study examines how gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered men
and women view the impact of legally recognized same-sex marriage on
their understanding and experience of the LGBT community. Participants
were asked to reflect upon the impact of legally recognized same-sex
marriage on the LGBT community, rather than on the individuals or
couples, because of the unique relationships among LGBT individuals,
same-sex couples and the LGBT community. The ‘community’ has been
described as existing on many planes ranging from a close group of friends
to inhabitants of a shared gay ghetto to a largely imagined group of indi-
viduals who have same-sex desire in common (Woolwine, 2000). Although
heterosexual couples also experience relational processes within a broader
social context (Parks & Eggert, 1991), Stearns and Sabini (1997) point out
that same-sex couples experience a unique type of community influence on
their relational processes because same-sex couples are part of a minority
group defined by relational and sexual preference. Same-sex couples often
find acceptance only within the LGBT community, rely on community
organizations for specialized resources, and/or negotiate their separateness
from the community due to the pressures of heterosexism (sometimes
internalized) or to protect their relationship (Meyer, 1990; Peplau &
Cochran, 1981; Stearns & Sabini, 1997). As such, the links between same-
sex couples and the LGBT community have been shown to be complex and
participation in the community from couples and individuals varied. Yet,
the potential implications of legally recognized same-sex marriage may be
so widespread that this institution holds the possibility to reshape the
dynamics of the LGBT community system. Therefore, the meaning of this
new phenomenon should be considered in relation to participants’ experi-
ences of the LGBT community, while meanings assigned to same-sex
marriage should reveal insights into participants’ understanding of the
LGBT community itself (Adelman & Frey, 1997).
By examining themes that emerged when LGBT community members
were asked to consider the ways in which legally recognized same-sex
6Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(1)
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 6
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
marriage may positively and negatively affect the LGBT community, this
study offers a ‘real-time’ picture of social change in the definition, recog-
nition, and understanding of same-sex romantic relationships. The under-
standing of legally recognized same-sex marriage that emerges is
multilayered, with an overarching theme of equality forming a surface over
deeper dialectical themes describing tensions in the perceived influence of
same-sex marriage on same-sex romantic relationships, the LGBT
community, and the relationship between the LGBT community and
heterosexual others. The findings of the study suggest that same-sex
marriage should be considered as a context for all future discussions of
married and unmarried same-sex partnerships.
Method
Participants
Two hundred and eighty-eight people participated in the study; 169 participants
were female, 113 were male, and 6 identified as neither male nor female.
Participant ages ranged from 19 to 66 years (M= 31.6, Mdn = 30, SD =9.6)
Most participants were White (N= 262), 15 participants were African
American, 3 were Asian, and 8 did not identify a racial or ethnic heritage.
Participants identified themselves as gay or lesbian (N= 235), bisexual (N= 44)
and queer/transgendered (N= 9), and had identified themselves as such for an
average of 11.4 years (Mdn = 10, SD = 7.89). Most participants described them-
selves as ‘totally’ (N= 161) or ‘mostly’ (N= 114) out about their sexual orien-
tation, whereas the rest (N= 13) indicated that they were out to only a few
people. One hundred and ninety-three participants were currently involved in
a primary romantic relationship, and the length of those relationships ranged
from 1 to 36 years (M= 5.50, Mdn =4, SD = 4.80).
Procedure
Data collection took place over 6 weeks. Collection started 2 months after the
SJC ruling was announced and ended 6 weeks before marriage licenses were
issued to same-sex couples in Massachusetts. Participants were recruited
through a snowball sampling method. First, the author made announcements
inviting participants on several Massachusetts LGBT listservs and through the
membership lists of several Boston LGBT recreational and social organiz-
ations. After completing a web-based survey, participants were asked to pass
the URL along to other LGBT community members who might be interested
in participating. This method generated 166 participants who resided in
Massachusetts, and 122 who resided in one of the other states. At the time of
data collection, it was expected that residents of other US states would be able
to obtain legally recognized same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, therefore the
information from non-Massachusetts participants was retained for analysis.
The recruitment announcement informed potential participants that the
study was being conducted to better understand what members of the LGBT
community thought about the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and that
participation would require them to complete an anonymous web-based
survey. Interested participants were provided with a URL for the web-based
survey. The welcome page for the survey reiterated the goal of the project, that
Lannutti: Same-sex marriage 7
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 7
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
participation was anonymous, and gave instructions. Participants were asked to
respond to several open-ended questions, followed by demographic items and
close-ended items. This study examines the meaning of same-sex marriage in
relation to participants’ experiences of the LGBT community, thus two of the
open-ended items (‘In your opinion, how may legalizing same-sex marriage
change the LGBT community for the better?’; ‘In your opinion, how may legal-
izing same-sex marriage change the LGBT community for the worse?’) are of
interest for this study. These questions attempt to elicit a wide range of partici-
pants’ understanding of same-sex marriage and the community using a tech-
nique similar to that in Paul and Hayes’ (2002) exploration of college students’
hookups. After completing the survey, the participants viewed an end screen
that thanked them for their participation and asked them to please pass the
study URL on to other members of the LGBT community who may be inter-
ested in participating.
Analysis
Participants’ responses to the two questions of interest were analyzed using
an inductive method informed by grounded theory. When using this type of
data-driven approach, themes emerge from the participants’ responses rather
than a priori conceptual categories (Boyatzis, 1998). Following coding
procedures suggested by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003), responses to each
item were examined and sub-themes were noted. A constant comparative
process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was employed to compare emerging sub-
themes until saturation was reached. At that point, no new sub-themes were
identified and almost all responses fit within a sub-theme. Conceptual
linkages among the sub-themes were noted throughout the analysis and
informed the creation of themes. In addition to the constant comparative
process, other steps were taken to ensure the validity and credibility of the
data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). To further
ensure the validity of the coding procedure, a colleague with expertise in
qualitative methods reviewed the data and coding results and agreed with the
fittingness of the data to the sub-themes and themes. To check the credibility
of the coding, five members of the LGBT community were asked to review
the sub-themes and themes, and they confirmed that the descriptions fitted
with their lived experiences regarding same-sex marriage. Finally, the author
examined the themes and constructed a theoretical narrative to best explain
the results.
Results and discussion
Analysis of the data revealed that participants assigned meaning to legally
recognized same-sex marriage in relation to the LGBT community along four
clear and strong themes. The first of these themes, legal equality, was
mentioned by nearly every participant and served as a surface theme over
deeper understandings of same-sex marriage. The other three themes were
revealed as dialectical tensions existing under the initial surface of legal
equality and signified contradictory expectations about how same-sex marriage
will influence same-sex relationships, the LGBT community, and the relation-
ship between the LGBT community and heterosexual others. The presentation
of the results relies upon directly quoted excerpts from the participants’
8Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(1)
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 8
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
responses to give priority to their voices. The examples chosen are represen-
tative of the responses of many.
Surface theme: Legal equality
Nearly every participant mentioned that the legal recognition of same-sex
marriage represented an aspect of legal equality for LGBT people, and this was
seen as affecting the LGBT community for the better. The theme of legal
equality should not be surprising given that same-sex marriage has been
promoted by LGBT advocacy groups, such as MassEquality (see MassEqual-
ity, n.d.) and the Human Rights Campaign (see Human Rights Campaign, n.d.),
as a necessary means to ending the discrimination experienced by LGBT
people in the US. The theme of legal equality comprised three sub-themes:
first-class citizenship, financial benefits, and family security.
The first sub-theme of legal equality, first-class citizenship, reflected the
participants’ beliefs that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage marks the
end of differing legal protections and treatment for LGBT and heterosexual
American citizens. One participant expressed the end of ‘second-class citizen-
ship,’ ‘We now have the same rights as everybody else. They can’t say we are
second class or not as worthy of legal rights as straights anymore.’ Another
stated, ‘This finally makes us real American citizens. It shows that we are
Americans and being married is part of our fundamental American rights.’ So
strong was some participants’ view of same-sex marriage as a vehicle for first-
class citizenship that they rejected the relational aspects of marriage and
instead defined marriage in legal terms only. For example, one stated:
Having same-sex marriage, and calling it marriage especially, makes the discussion
about gay relationships a legal one, not a religious or moral issue. This shows
everyone that we are citizens, we pay taxes, and we have to be treated the same as
everybody else. So, this isn’t about marriage, it’s about equal rights.
The theme of legal equality was also expressed through two sub-themes
related to other expected benefits of legally recognized same-sex marriage:
financial benefits and family security. First, participants welcomed the financial
benefits of same-sex marriage. One expressed, ‘Having the right to get married
means that same-sex couples can now get the tax breaks and other financial
perks, such as getting to share property, of being married.’ Many participants
expressed the financial benefits of legal equality in terms of health and insur-
ance benefits. For example, ‘Now couples will be able to share health insur-
ance, and that’s really important, especially to older couples or when one
partner can’t work.’ Participants also understood legal equality as a means for
increased security for LGBT families. One participant’s statement reflected
many participants’ concerns for same-sex couples with children, ‘Being able to
get married will help couples who have children or want to have children. It
should help in adoptions a lot if the couple can say they are married. It will
make sure all LGBT families are legally protected.’ Others thought ahead to
protection of families in times of crisis. For example, one participant stated,
‘Being able to get married means that I will be able to take care of my partner,
like making medical or other types of decisions for him, if something horrible
happens or when we are older because everyone will have to recognize me as
his partner.’
Although nearly all of the participants agreed that same-sex marriage should
be understood, at least in part, as a way of gaining legal equality for LGBT
Lannutti: Same-sex marriage 9
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 9
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
people in the US, legal equality was not the only way in which participants
understood same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage as legal equality was recog-
nized as important and positive for the LGBT community and the expressions
of legal equality were similar to those put forth in the public domain by advo-
cates of same-sex marriage. Yet, the participants’ understandings of same-sex
marriage and its expected effects on the LGBT community went beyond legal
equality and were revealed in contradictory expectations about the new
phenomenon and couples, the LGBT community, and the relationship between
the LGBT community and heterosexual others. The descriptions of these
additional themes were more varied and detailed than those of legal equality,
suggesting that legal equality is an overarching surface theme and these dialec-
tical themes are situated in deeper, richer and more controversial layers
beneath legal equality’s external veneer.
Deeper dialectical tensions
Baxter and Montgomery (1996) have described relational dynamics and
communication as dialectical processes in which people experience simul-
taneously contradictory forces. These forces drive changes in relationships and
are both affected by and affect communication between relational partners.
Baxter and Montgomery emphasize the need to understand the totality of
dialectics by recognizing them as interdependent with each other and contex-
tualized within a culture. They see dyads as both defining and being defined by
a larger social order or culture, suggesting that to better understand relation-
ships, dialectics should be examined not only at the dyadic level, but also at the
larger societal level. Participants’ responses reflected dialectical themes in the
understanding of same-sex marriage at three interconnected levels: dyadic
partnerships, the LGBT community, and between the LGBT community and
heterosexual others. It is interesting to note that because participants were
asked about both positive and negative ways in which legally recognized same-
sex marriage may impact the LGBT community, they were encouraged to think
about two sides of legally recognized same-sex marriage. Yet, the questions did
not encourage participants to describe positives and negatives along simul-
taneously conflicting themes. Therefore, the nature of the questions may have
contributed to the emergence of dialectical themes, but did not necessitate
dialectical responses.
Same-sex partnerships: Serious/fanciful. The first dialectical theme that
emerges from the participants’ reflections upon legally recognized same-sex
marriage and the LGBT community begins at the dyadic level and reflects out
upon the community. Participants had contradictory, yet simultaneous views of
same-sex marriage as a means for same-sex partnerships to become more
serious and more fanciful.
Participants expressed their belief that same-sex marriage will make same-
sex couples take their relationships more seriously and strengthen same-sex
partnerships in a variety of ways. For example, one participant saw same-sex
marriage as adding seriousness for those who marry as well as those who do
not. ‘Getting married will help couples feel closer to each other and will make
their relationship stronger. Couples who don’t get married right away will
realize that they can work toward a serious relationship in the future because
they have the option of getting married someday.’ Others felt that same-sex
marriage would make stronger relationships because the institutionalization of
10 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(1)
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 10
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
same-sex relationships will create a type of structural barrier to relational disso-
lution (Attridge, 1994; Johnson, 1982). For example, ‘Marriage makes people
take a relationship more seriously and realize that they need to work on it
instead of just leaving when things get tough. Gay people will now have to look
at their relationships as more stable and permanent because there are
marriages.’ Other responses linked stronger relationships to a stronger LGBT
community as a result of same-sex marriage: ‘Same-sex marriage means that
our relationships will be more stable which will make our community much
stronger.’ Another stated:
Being able to get married will make the whole community stronger and happier
because people will be more supported in their relationships, but will also be held
more accountable for them in the eyes of others. After all, we all want lesbian and
gay marriages to work out.
Although participants saw same-sex marriage as resulting in more serious
same-sex partnerships, they also expressed the opposite idea by suggesting that
same-sex marriage might encourage more fanciful relationships as well. Many
expressed concern that the excitement of having legally recognized marriage
for the first time may lead same-sex couples to marry for the ‘wrong reasons.’
For example, ‘Same-sex marriage could be a problem for couples and the whole
community if people get married for the wrong reasons. Like, if people marry
just because they can now, or because it seems like the cool thing to do if you
are gay or lesbian now.’ Another participant offered, ‘Having the ability to get
married is great, but not if people get married without thinking long and hard
about the lifetime commitment they are making. I think getting married is
going to be a fad for a while.’ Others were concerned that same-sex couples
might marry for political reasons. For example, ‘One problem with gay
marriage is that people might marry out of duty to the community for having
won the right or in some sort of protest to those who think that we shouldn’t
marry because we are gay. Those won’t be good marriages.’ Thus, participants
believed that same-sex marriage would have opposing results on same-sex
partnerships: to make them more serious and more fanciful. Participants also
indicated that these effects on partnerships would also reflect out to affect the
LGBT community. The second dialectical theme that emerged from the partici-
pants’ thoughts on same-sex marriage sharpened the focus on the LGBT
community.
The LGBT community: Stronger/weaker. The second dialectical theme that
emerged from the participants’ thoughts about legally recognized same-sex
marriage and the LGBT community reflects participants’ simultaneous and
contradictory beliefs that same-sex marriage will make the community stronger
and weaker. Participants’ understanding of same-sex marriage as something
that will make the LGBT community stronger was expressed in two sub-
themes: validation and unification.
Participants saw the legal recognition of same-sex marriage as extending
beyond legal equality to creating a sense of validation for the community and
its members. As one participant stated, ‘Same-sex marriage is a wonderful
thing for the LGBT community because it shows us that we matter and we are
to be respected in our ways of loving and living our lives.’ Another wrote,
‘There is such joy in the community right now because of this. It’s like the
whole state is celebrating lesbian and gay relationships.’ Others expressed
Lannutti: Same-sex marriage 11
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 11
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
validation through their belief that same-sex marriage will serve to diminish
internalized homophobia within the community. For example:
Even though being gay is a lot better than it was 20 years ago, lots of members of
our community still feel oppressed and have come to believe that they are worth-
less because they are queer. This marriage thing says it’s really OK to be gay in a
huge way and that should help to lessen the internalized homophobia going around.
If we stop hating ourselves, we will be so much stronger as a group.
Participants also saw legally recognized same-sex marriage as strengthening the
LGBT community through unification. One participant stated:
What’s important here isn’t just that we finally have the legal right to marry, but
that we as a community fought long and hard for this and have a real victory to
hold on to. Even though we won in Massachusetts, the fight for equality is not over
here or anywhere yet, but the community has really come together and is being
strong together.
Another echoed the political unification of the community around same-sex
marriage issues, ‘The fight for same-sex marriage has shown the community
that we can do good when we have a unified political voice.’ Other participants
saw unification not in political terms, but in terms of the dynamics of relation-
ships within the community. For example:
Gay marriage will help to tie partnered gay people to the community as a whole.
Before, if you were in a long-term relationship, you sort of lost touch with the
community because the community seemed to be for single people who were inter-
ested in hooking-up. This whole gay marriage thing shows that partnered people
are welcome and needed in the community because the community wanted
marriage as an option.
Although same-sex marriage was understood as making the LGBT
community stronger through the sub-themes of validation and unification,
participants also espoused an opposing view that saw same-sex marriage
weakening the community. The meanings of same-sex marriage as something
that weakens the LGBT community were expressed in two sub-themes: stigma-
tization and assimilation. The stigmatization associated with same-sex marriage
in the present responses differs from that usually presented in studies of the
LGBT community (e.g., DiPlacido, 1998) which describe the experience of
homo-sexual, bisexual and/or transgendered as setting one apart from the
norms of mainstream/heterosexual society. Instead, the participants foresaw
same-sex marriage as setting up a stigmatizing system within the LGBT
community as getting married becomes the norm and remaining unmarried
becomes a stigma. One participant explains:
Same-sex marriage will set up marriage as the ultimate relational goal and make
other ways of relating and loving invalid in the community. People will start to
wonder what is wrong with you if you are in a good relationship and you don’t get
married, and will be disappointed in you if you say you just don’t see marriage as
something you want for your life.
Participants suggested that the stigma of not getting married would lead to
nonmarried couples losing the LGBT community’s support. For example, ‘I
think that the same-sex marriage is a good thing, but that it will cause some
trouble. I mean, the community isn’t going to take a couple seriously unless
they get married now.’ Another predicted that the stigma of nonmarriage
would divide the LGBT community into two distinct groups:
12 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(1)
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 12
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
I guess there will now be the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ when it comes to marriage.
This will cause a split in the community because the married gays will look down
on the nonmarried gays and the nonmarried gays will probably be seen as rebels
or trouble-makers. At the very least, there will be a split because the married and
nonmarried gays will want different things for the community and won’t work
together anymore.
Other participants expressed the idea of stigma and same-sex marriage as
causing divides between gay men and lesbians and other members of the
community. For example:
Same-sex marriage is great if you are gay or lesbian, but if you are bisexual this will
just force you out of the ‘LGBT’ community more. I mean, gay and lesbian people
will want a same-sex marriage now and if you are bi you might not want to do that,
so you will be an outcast in a way because you won’t be seen as worth having a
relationship with anymore.
Another expressed concern about the transgendered segment of the LGBT
community:
I’m not sure where same-sex marriage leaves you if you are trans or genderqueer.
There are issues of identity (psychologically and legally) that the trans community
is facing that are glossed over when you think about same-sex marriage because it
is so dependent on ‘same-sex’ which may or may not apply in relationships with a
genderqueer or trans partner. It seems to me that married gay and lesbian couples
are being seen as the ‘right’ kind of relationship, and that just makes the MTFs,
FTMs, butches, bois, queers and everyone else who doesn’t fall in a neat little box
fit less and less into the so-called LGBT community.
In addition to stigmatization, participants also expected same-sex marriage
to weaken the LGBT community through a process of assimilation. Partici-
pants’ sensed that same-sex marriage may lead to the LGBT community losing
its unique culture and instead move closer to what they saw as a straight status
quo. Many mentioned the loss of difference when same-sex marriage is legally
recognized. For example, ‘Having the same marriage rights as everybody else
also means that we will become everybody else. We just won’t be unique
anymore.’ Others expressed the theme of assimilation by talking about how
same-sex marriage will affect relational dynamics:
Same-sex marriage might impose a cookie-cutter set of rules on our relationships.
Gay and lesbian couples have been special in that we could have more fluid, and
more realistic, relationships, but now that will change. The unique way we defined
our relationships was one of the things that made the community so special, and
I’m sad to see that part of us go.
Another participant agreed that a change in the way LGBT relationships are
defined takes something away from the community:
Legalization of same-sex marriages might lead us to take our relationships for
granted. I mean, it’s not a big deal anymore to stand-up for your relationship if you
can get married. Before, it was a big deal to make a commitment and say you were
‘married’ to your partner because it meant you were brave and standing up for your
relationship in the face of all that said you couldn’t. Some of the bravery of being
gay and out and together is gone now.
Finally, others saw the assimilation potential of same-sex marriage as weaken-
ing the LGBT community because same-sex marriage could be seen as a
way of incorporating the norms of heterosexual relational culture. As one
Lannutti: Same-sex marriage 13
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 13
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
participant explained, ‘Marriage itself is a fundamentally flawed institution. It’s
patriarchal and makes people think they own other people. Now, the LGBT
community has bought into that.’ Another stated, ‘I just think that same-sex
marriage makes it look like all along we’ve wanted to be straight and that all
the horrible things that happen in straight marriages, like abuse and divorce,
are fine with us. We aren’t as strong as a community because we aren’t fighting
against the mainstream now, we are wanting to be a part of it.’
The dialectical theme that same-sex marriage will make the LGBT
community stronger and weaker through the contradictory sub-themes of vali-
dation and unification vs. stigmatization and assimilation that emerged in this
study echo the tensions in the sexual ideologies described by Yep, Lovaas, and
Elia (2003). Yep et al. (2003) compare the ideologies reflected in recent LGBT
popular literature in which assimilationist writers claim same-sex marriage will
improve the LGBT community, whereas radical writers see same-sex marriage
as the community’s downfall. The participants in this study reflected both
positions, but did so not by choosing one side or the other, but rather by
acknowledging both positions as part of their overall understanding of same-
sex marriage. An additional dialectical meaning of same-sex marriage emerged
from participants’ responses as they discussed their views on same-sex marriage
and the relationship between the LGBT community and heterosexual others.
Between the LGBT community and heterosexual others: Healing/injury. The
final dialectical theme that emerges from the LGBT participants’ understand-
ings of legally recognized same-sex marriage concerns the relationship between
the LGBT community and heterosexual others, or mainstream American
society. Participants recognized a tension between opposing results of same-sex
marriage. They saw same-sex marriage as a tool for healing the relationship
between the community and heterosexual others while simultaneously under-
standing that same-sex marriage may be used by heterosexual others as a
weapon to injure the LGBT community.
Participants expressed their belief that legally recognized same-sex marriage
would help to improve the relationship between the LGBT community and
heterosexual others in several ways. Many looked at same-sex marriage as a
beneficial public relations tool for the LGBT community that would lead to
greater acceptance of the community by the heterosexual mainstream. An
example of this idea is in the following participant statement, ‘Same-sex
marriage won’t just change the community, but the way the community is
viewed by those outside of it. If straight people see that we want to get married,
they will have to realize that the stereotypes of gays as promiscuous are wrong.
Basically, same-sex marriage will help to reduce homophobia in the straight
community.’ Another expressed a similar sentiment, ‘Same-sex marriage will
help to reduce the stress felt by sexual minorities because it will help reduce
the misunderstanding and rejection that they feel from heterosexual people.
Marriage makes relationships and families more visible and will make those
outside the community question their ignorance.’ In addition to helping to
change heterosexual others’ perceptions of the LGBT community, same-sex
marriage was seen as a tool for improving LGBT/straight relations by encour-
aging acceptance of LGBT relationships. For example, ‘Same-sex marriage
makes our relationships really count. Straights can’t ignore us anymore, and I
think most of them will come to accept us better if they see that we are married
just like they are.’ Another put the idea of acceptance in more personal terms:
14 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(1)
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 14
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
It would be nice if marriage made straight people, in general, like gay people more,
but I think it will really matter when you look at it in the smaller scale, like looking
at families. If you get married, your straight family will be able to better accept and
integrate your partner in the family because being married is something that is
easier for them to understand and accept.
Thus, same-sex marriage was seen as a tool to heal perceived rifts between the
LGBT community and heterosexual others by reducing homophobia and
ignorance and increasing acceptance and integration of LGBT community
members.
Although participants saw the potential for same-sex marriage to improve
the relationship between the LGBT community and heterosexual others, they
also pointed out the potential for legally recognized same-sex marriage to be
used as a weapon by a segment of mainstream society to hurt the LGBT
community. Participants were wary of scrutiny of the community that would
accompany same-sex marriage:
Same-sex marriage opens up our community to public scrutiny, especially from
conservatives and the media. I mean, there has never been a gay divorce rate
before and now it will be public knowledge when we break up and it will be
reported the same way stats on straight divorce are, but in our case, these stats
will be used as ‘proof’ that we shouldn’t have been allowed to marry in the first
place. It puts a lot of pressure on those getting married to stay together, and
pressure on the whole community to make sure we don’t add fuel to the fire.
Others expressed concern that same-sex marriage would force increases in
LGBT visibility and therefore increase vulnerability for physical and verbal
attack. For example, ‘Same-sex marriage is probably really upsetting a lot of
ignorant straight people out there. If you get married, everyone in your town
will know you are a lesbian or gay couple, and in some places that could be
like painting a target on your head.’
Another participant’s statement represents the hurt felt from anti-same-sex
marriage campaigns:
Same-sex marriage is opposed by a lot of the straight community and it has been
really painful to hear everyone from politicians to church leaders to just plain
people on the subway talk about how disgusting it is for LGBT people to get
married or worse, how disgusting we are period. It’s like the issue of same-sex
marriage has given people free range to make homophobic and offensive state-
ments anywhere and to anyone they please.
As with the other dialectical themes, participants understood the meaning of
same-sex marriage and the relationship between the LGBT community and
heterosexual others as incorporating two opposing poles. On the one hand,
they saw same-sex marriage as a tool to heal the schism between the LGBT
and straight community, and on the other hand, pointed to the ways in which
same-sex marriage could be used as a tool by segments of heterosexual society
to injure the LGBT community. Taken together, the four themes show that
participants understand legally recognized same-sex marriage as a complex
social change that brings with it an overarching move towards legal equality for
LGBT American citizens as well as simultaneously contradicting forces of
influence on three interdependent levels: same-sex partnerships, the LGBT
community, and the relationship between the LGBT community and hetero-
sexual others. As such, the participants’ responses reflect not only their
evolving understanding of same-sex marriage, but of the LGBT community.
Lannutti: Same-sex marriage 15
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 15
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Conclusion
Same-sex marriage: A new context for relationships
In the introduction to a recent special issue of Personal Relationships dedi-
cated to the importance of understanding the influence of context in studies
of personal relationships, Surra and Perlman (2003) point out that context
has been conceptualized in two ways: first, as a set of structural and cultural
forces external to a couple that combine to influence relationship processes,
and second, as something resulting from the relationship itself. Both views
of context apply to same-sex marriage as a context for the understanding
of same-sex relationships. Although various forms of domestic partnerships
and civil unions have been available to same-sex couples in some US loca-
tions in recent years (see Human Rights Campaign, n.d. and Purcell, 1998,
for reviews), on May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first location in
which same-sex couples could receive the same civil benefits as married
heterosexual couples. Thus, same-sex marriage creates a new legal, societal
and symbolic entity that same-sex relational partners may use to insti-
tutionalize their married relationships or as a counterpoint for the defi-
nition of their unmarried relationships.
Same-sex marriage is also a context in the sense that it is created by the
relationship between partners. Partners in all types of relationships can be
understood to create a unique context for their relationship through estab-
lishing a system of rules, expectations, and behavior within the relationship
(Argyle & Henderson, 1984; Baxter, Dun, & Sahlstein, 2001). This idea of
creating context is particularly salient when considering same-sex newly-
weds as they have the added advantage/burden of creating context in a type
of relationship that did not previously exist. As these relational systems are
created in the early same-sex marriage dyads, they can be expected to
create a benchmark from which to view the new phenomenon of same-sex
marriage. Also, same-sex couples who do not marry will also influence the
context of same-sex marriage by helping to establish what this new
phenomenon of same-sex marriage is not.
Thus, same-sex marriage as a context is best understood as neither an
external force nor product of the relationship, but as both simultaneously.
In this way, same-sex marriage exemplifies a core concept of dialectics:
praxis. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) define praxis as the idea that people
are both ‘actors and objects of their own actions’ (p. 13). The idea of praxis
applies to same-sex marriage and the LGBT community as they are under-
stood by the participants of this study. In the dialectical themes, partici-
pants expressed not only the contradictory and interdependent meanings
of same-sex marriage, but also that same-sex marriage is being defined by
the LGBT community while simultaneously redefining the meaning of the
LGBT community. This interplay is seen in the participants’ understand-
ing of same-sex marriage at the three interdependent levels of same-sex
partnerships, the LGBT community, and the relationship between the
LGBT community and heterosexual others. It is important to note that at
the time of this data collection, the future of same-sex marriage in
16 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(1)
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 16
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Massachusetts began to face legal challenges that will surely continue, and
that the issue of same-sex marriage was gaining national attention as more
states, such as Oregon and Minnesota, moved for and against same-sex
marriage (see Human Rights Campaign, n.d.). As the institution of same-
sex marriage spreads, changes, and matures so will the evolving under-
standing of this phenomenon, but one conclusion of this study will remain
constant: same-sex marriage should be understood as a complex cultural
and personal phenomenon to be considered as a context for understanding
same-sex relationships in the future.
REFERENCES
Adelman, M. B., & Frey, L. R. (1997). The fragile community: Living together with AIDS.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alderson, K., & Lahey, K. A. (2004). Same-sex marriage: The personal and the political. New
York: Insomniac Press.
Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 1, 211–237.
Attridge, M. (1994). Barriers to the dissolution of romantic relationships. In D. J. Canary &
L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 141–164). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and
analysis. New York: New York University Press.
Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., & Sahlstein, E. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social
network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173–199.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York:
Guilford Press.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: A consequent
of heterosexism, homophobia, and stigmatization. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual
orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 138–159).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.SJC-08860, November 18, 2003.
Haley-Banez, L., & Garrett, J. (2002). Lesbians in committed relationships: Extraordinary
couples, ordinary lives. New York: Hayworth Press.
Human Rights Campaign (n.d.). Marriage. Available [accessed 2 September 2004]:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/Tagg
edPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=63&ContentID=15110.
Johnson, M. P. (1982). Social and cognitive features of the dissolution of commitment to
relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships
(pp. 51–74). London: Academic Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
MassEquality (n.d.). No discrimination in the constitution. Available [accessed 8 June 2004]
http://www.massequality.org/.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. (1990). Guess who’s coming to dinner this time? A study of gay intimate relation-
ships and the support of those relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 16, 59–82.
Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and family ritual. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 349–368.
Lannutti: Same-sex marriage 17
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 17
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Oswald, R. F. (2002). Who am I in relation to them? Gay, lesbian, and queer people leave the
city to attend rural family weddings. Journal of Family Studies, 23, 323–348.
Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of
the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 19, 639–661.
Parks, M. R., & Eggert, L. L. (1991). The role of context in the dynamics of personal relation-
ships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 1–34).
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1981). Value orientations in the intimate relationships of gay
men. Journal of Homosexuality, 6, 1–9.
Purcell, D. W. (1998). Current trends in same-sex marriage. In R. J. Cabaj & D. W. Purcell
(Eds.), On the road to same-sex marriage: A supportive guide to psychological, political and
legal issues (pp. 29–40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slater, S. (1995). The lesbian family life cycle. New York: Free Press.
Stearns, D. C., & Sabini, J. (1997). Dyadic adjustment and community involvement in same-
sex couples. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 2, 265–283.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Stiers, G. (1999). From this day forward: Commitment, marriage, and family in lesbian and gay
relationships. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Surra, C. A., & Perlman, D. (2003). Introduction: The many faces of context. Personal
Relationships, 10, 1350–1426.
Woolwine, D. (2000). Community in gay male experience and moral discourse. Journal of
Homosexuality, 38, 5–37.
Yep, G. A., Lovaas, K. E., & Elia, J. P. (2003). A critical appraisal of assimilationist and radical
ideologies underlying same-sex marriage in LGBT communities in the United States.
Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 45–64.
18 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(1)
01 lannutti (ds) 26/1/05 1:53 pm Page 18
at BOSTON COLLEGE on July 18, 2011spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
