PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRCIDateDue.p65op. 15

SYSTEMIC INFLUENCES ON ACCEPTING AND SUPPORTIVE
PARENTS OF GAY SONS: TOWARDS A STRENGTHS MODEL

By
Michelle M. Crooks

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2003

ABSTRACT

SYSTEMIC INFLUENCES ON ACCEPTING AND SUPPORTIVE PARENTS
OF GAY SONS: TOWARDS A STRENGTHS MODEL

By

Michelle M. Crooks

The Purpose of this study was to learn more about the attributes and
systemic influences of parents who are accepting and supportive of their sons’ gay
identities. This was a qualitative study in which fourteen parents of gay sons
were asked to tell the story of their own coming out processes as “parents of gay
sons.” Information concerning their definitions of parental acceptance, their
journeys to acceptance, their relationships with their sons, and the ecosystemic
influences on their coming out processes was obtained through their narrative
accounts. By hearing these stories, an appreciation of personal attributes,
strengths, and resiliency of these parents was gained. Ethnographic Content
Analysis was used to examine four areas: Parental Definitions of Acceptance,
Parents’ Relationships with Their Sons, Parents’ Stories of Their Coming Out
Processes, and Ecosystemic Influences on Parents’ Coming out Processes. A
grounded theory approach was utilized in an attempt to generate new theoretical
concepts from the parents’ stories. It is anticipated that the knowledge gained
from this study will ultimately assist in developing a strengths-based model that
can be utilized in clinical settings to assist parents who are experiencing a coming

out process related to the disclosure of a child’s gay or lesbian identity.

Dedicated to my children: Abby, Molly and Leigh, whose strength and resilience
have been a gift to my own journey.

And to Jean Paul Luc, who helped me discover new pieces of myself along the
way.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I remember a time early in my journey that I was sitting in a required graduate
school seminar, a sort of “Graduate School 101: How to Be Successful and Maintain
Your Sanity” or some such At some point my attention drifted and I tried to imagine
myself at the end of it all. I thought about this very moment, when I would reach the
end and write my “ackowledgements” to all of the people who had abetted my success.
This was to replace my “Academy Award Acceptance Speech” now that I had officially
given up my dreams of stardom. Many times during the process of graduate school, I
would write my “acknowledgemen ” piece in my mind. I went through several
iterations (serious, humorous and philosophical) during the commute to and from school,
in the middle of the night, and yes, even when I was bored in class. I needed to envision
myself a success in the end. What I did not realize was that I would have to complete the
entire journey before I could truly appreciate the impact of the many people who enriched
it. Now, I have finally arrived, so here it goes...

First, I would like to acknowledge and thank the parents who participated in this
study. Their stories were candid and poignant. Their strength and spirit touched me.
Their narratives enriched my project in ways that I never imagined.

I am very appreciative of my committee for their guidance and support during the
process. I would like to thank Dr. Marsha Carolan for first introducing me to narrative
study and for incorporating a feminist perspective into her teaching and supervision. I
would like to thank Dr. Rena Harold for her cooperative nature, being the “outside

member” of my committee. I was also fortunate to take a class from her and

iv

experience her enlightened perspective. I would like to thank Dr. Robert Griffore for his
kind and supportive manner. His ideas significantly increased the quality of this project.
I am also deeply appreciative of my committee chair, Dr. Robert E. Lee, but I will thank
him at the end.

I have been fortunate in my life to have many wonderful fiiends. These
friendships have contributed to a much richer life experience and have help to shape me.
Specifically, I would like to thank Dave, for his warmth, humor and for helping me relax
when my last nerve is shredded. I would like to thank Cara, for being my unofficial
therapist, for her honesty, for feeding me so well, and for sharing Tristan and his stories,
which are always good for a smile. I would like to thank Robbin, for always being who
she is, no matter what and for making me feel very valued amongst her sea of friends.
Finally, I would like to thank Lori, who is truly like a sister to me. She understands
mature friendship. My ability to get through some of the more tortuous times of graduate
school was greatly enhanced by her unconditional love, support and ability to withstand
being “blown ofi” during the past six weeks. And nobody makes me laugh like her.

I would also like to thank Chris. Even though our relationship changed form over
the course of the past seven years, I am hopeful that the bond that was created through
our struggles and triumphs and through the experience of co-parenting will endure. I
never for a minute fail to appreciate her contribution to my success. Logistically and
emotionally, I would not have been able to accomplish what I have without her support.

I am deeply appreciative of my family for instilling in me the value of knowledge.

My experience in my particular family taught me about change, adaptation and strength.

I would particularly like to thank my mom, for her nurturing and love throughout my life.
She has been a true example of strength in the face of adversity. I would also like to
thank her for bailing me out of “Transcription Hell” (“Willo” and “p-flea”). I also truly
owe Jim a “debt” of gratitude (he’ll hold me to this). I have to say, it was a little scary to
entrust someone who thought homophobia meant “the fear of milk,” but I am beyond
appreciative of his help. And underneath that cynical facade, lies a truly caring person. I
am also lucky to have siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, whose love, support, and
“spoiling,” I have appreciated along the way.

My children, Abby, Molly and Leigh exceed me in intelligence, creativity and .
most virtues. I am so proud of each of them and they make me want to strive to be a
better person. They have been such troopers throughout this journey and I consider it a
true blessing that I get to be their mom. Abby, thank you for being so responsible,
challenging me and for making me laugh. Molly, thank you for your good nature and for
affirming and entertaining me. Leigh, thank you for being so open and creative.

Finally, back to that graduate school seminar. I remember that someone put a
cartoon/fable on an overhead. . .something about rabbits eating foxes. I can’t remember
the story exactly, but the moral was that “the only thing that truly mattered was who you
chose for your major professor.” In Dr. Robert E. Lee, I chose the best. His example of
success inspires me. His intelligence awes me. His sense of humor. . .is as sick as my
own. . .and I love it. We have always been able to be honest with one another, even about
embarrassing things. I feel fortunate to take his fiiendship with me as a gift fi'om this
journey. And as I have learned, journeys do not truly end. . .they branch off into different

roads.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................. 2
Importance of the Problem ................................................................. 3
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................... 4
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Map ............................................... 6
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................... 7
Human Ecology Theory ..................................................... 7
Family Ecology Theory ..................................................... 9
Narrative Study ............................................................... 10
Description of Theoretical Map. . .. ........................................ 12
Figure 1.2: Theoretical Map ............................................... 14
Assumptions and Propositions ............................................................ 15
Assumptions .................................................................. 15
Broad Assumptions ........................................... 15
Domain Assumptions ......................................... 15
Propositions ................................................................... 16
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................. 17
Gay and Lesbian Inquiry ................................................................... 17
Models of Gay and Lesbian Identity Formation ......................... 17
Family Adjustment to a Member "Coming Out" ........................ 20
Heterosexism and Homophobia ............................................ 21
Influences of Homophobia on Ecosystemic Environment .............. 22
Stigma in Gay and Lesbian Identity ....................................... 23
Disclosure and Reaction .................................................... 25
Resources ..................................................................... 26
Relationships Between Gays and Lesbians and Their Parents ......... 27
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 30
Qualitative Methodology ................................................................... 30
Grounded Theory ............................................................ 31
Feminist Inquiry .............................................................. 33
Research Objectives and Questions ...................................................... 34
Population and Sample ..................................................................... 36
Sample Size ................................................................... 36
Sample Acquisition and Site ................................................ 37
Data Collection .............................................................................. 38
Interview Process ............................................................ 38
Data Analysis ................................................................................ 39
Coding Process ............................................................... 40
Table 1: Final Coding Frame .............................................. 43
Trustworthiness .............................................................. 45
Ethical Considerations ...................................................... 45

vii

Chapter 4

FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 48
Overview ..................................................................................... 48
Demographics ............................................................................... 50

Table 2: Demographic Information ....................................... 51
Parental Definitions of Acceptance ...................................................... 52
Code: Treatment ............................................................. 52
Theme: Verbal Support ..................................... 53

Theme: Inclusion in Family Events ........................ 54

Theme: Acceptance of Significant Others ................ 56

Theme: Non-disparate Treatment .......................... 58

Theme: Unconditional Love .............................. . .. 60

Code: Comfort Level ....................................................... 60
Theme: Absence of Desire to Change Sons' Gay Identities... 61

Parents' Relationships with Their Sons ................................................... 64
Code: Recollection of Sons Prior to Coming Out ...................... 64
Theme: Feminine Adjectives ............................... 65

Theme: Other Positive Qualities ........................... 66

Theme: Closeness of Parent-Child Relationship ......... 68

Theme: Ease of Raising Child .............................. 69

Code: Relationship During the Coming Out Process ................... 70
Theme: Contact and Connectedness ....................... 71

Theme: Low Level of Conflict ............................. 72

Code: Present Relationship ................................................ 73
Theme: Growth ............................................... 73

Parents' Stories of Their Coming Out Processes ........................................ 74
Code: Prior Awareness ..................................................... 75
Theme: Lack of Dating ...................................... 76

Theme: Gender Qualities ................................... 77

Theme: Specific Incidences ................................ 79

Code: Disclosure ............................................................ 81
Theme: How and When Disclosure was Made .......... 81

Theme: Reactions ............................................ 83

Code: Coping Stategies ..................................................... 86
Theme: Communication ..................................... 86

Theme: Information Gathering ............................. 87

Theme: P-FLAG ............................................. 88

Code: Difficult Aspects .................................................... 91
Theme: Transending Stereotypes/Negative Sexual Images. 92

Theme: Fear of Negative Repercussions for Sons ....... 93

Theme: Regret About Failure to be Supportive Earlier... 95

Theme: Coming Out to Others ............................. 96

Code: Gay Culture .......................................................... 98
Theme: Meeting/Interacting with Gays & Lesbians ..... 98

Theme: Activism ............................................. 99
Code: Present Experience .................................................. 100
Theme: Non-Issue ............................................ lOl

viii

Code: Nuclear Family ...................................................... 102

Theme: Support ................................................ 103
Theme: Balanced Autonomy and Connectedness. . . . . . 104
Code: Extended Family ..................................................... 105
Theme: Positive Responses ...................................... 106
Code: Religion ............................................................... 108
Theme: Ability to Transcend Religious Bias/Dogma. . . . . 109
Theme: Promoting Change ............................ ' ........... 111
Code: Occupations Outside the Home ........... 112
Theme: Professional Training .................................... 112
Theme: Work Experiences ....................................... l 13
Code: Social/Recreation .................................................... 115
Theme: Comfort and Acceptance fiom Friends ............... 116
Code: Influence of Societal Homophobia ................................ 117
Theme: Low Levels of Internalized Homophobia ............ 117
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 120
Overview ..................................................................................... 120
Theoretical Foundations and Implications ............................................... 120
Key Findings/Themes ...................................................................... 122
Desire to Continue Positive Relationships ........................................ 122
Ability to Utilize Resources ......................................................... 124
Impact of Positive Interaction with Gays and Lesbians and
Participation in Gay Culture ......................................................... 125
Ecosystemic Processes Related to Acceptance ................................... 126
Relational Resiliency ................................................................. 128
Gender Differences .................................................................. 130
Research Implications ...................................................................... 130
Clinical Implications ........................................................................ 132
Limitations ................................................................................... 134
Conclusion ................................................................................... 136
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 137
APPENDICES .............................................................................................. 146
Appendix A: Letter to Parents ............................................................. 146
Appendix B: Initial Agreement to Participate/Demographic Information ........... 147
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form .................................................... 148
Appendix D: Semi-Structured Interview Guide ......................................... 149
Appendix E: Contact Summary Form .................................................... 151

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION

Sometimes life events require people to reach beyond their standard repertoire of
coping and understanding, and adopt new ways of knowing and believing (Tom, 1984).
Such flexibility is said to be an example of healthy functioning in family systems
(Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). Frequently, relationships between family members must
be renegotiated. Some families experience difficulty as they navigate the changes of time
and circumstance. Others possess the ability to more easily transition through the
vicissitudes of life. The "coming out" of a family member as gay or lesbian is one of
those events that challenges previous ways of understanding and requires an adjustment
of previously held beliefs. Parents often experience conflict between their love for their
son or daughter on the one hand, and their own negative biases towards homosexuality
borne out of the pervasive influence of societal homophobia on the other (Elizur & Ziv,
2001). Although some families successfully negotiate a coming out process of their own
upon the disclosure of a member's gay or lesbian identity, others are seemingly unable to
cope, ofien at the expense of family relationships.

One of the most difficult things for gays and lesbians to reconcile within
themselves is the loss of love and support from family once they have decided to disclose
their gay or lesbian identity (LaSalla, 2000). Particularly painful is the rejection fiom
some parents who are crippled in their ability to offer support in light of their own
internalized homophobia. People are often encouraged to view the family, and more

specifically their parents as a source of refuge and comfort as they experience difficult

transitions. Goldfiied and Goldfiied (2001) observe that the presence or absence of
support from parents can have a significant psychological impact on gays or lesbians.
When parents are unable to provide loving affirmation for the essence of their gay or
lesbian child's identity, both the parent and the child experience a deep loss. Parents who
are able to accept their children's gay or lesbian identity are often rewarded with a more
genuine parent-child relationship as they are able to experience the full realm of their
child's being.
Statement of the Problem

While it is important to explore the coming out process for families of
both gays and lesbians, this study focused on the families of gay men as a starting point.
The primary goal of this research was to explore the attributes and experiences of parents
who are accepting of their sons’ gay identities through the parents’ stories of these
experiences. Specifically, this study gathered qualitative data for the purpose of
providing information concerning the salient characteristics of accepting parents of gay
sons as well as information about the primary systems in which these parents are
embedded. This research addresses the interface of the sons’ coming out processes with
the parents’ own coming out processes as "parents of gay sons" and explores the quality
of the parent-child relationship across time. This project allowed the parents to story
their experiences of coming out and to ascribe their own meanings to these experiences.
Narrative accounts were elicited to illustrate the salient reactions to and experiences
around their sons’ coming out and their eventual acceptance of their sons’ gay identities.
Finally, this research attempted to develop definitions concerning levels of parental

acceptance based on the narratives of the parents.

Importance of the Problem

On April 30, 1997, the sitcom Ellen aired a now-famous episode in which the title
character came to terms with the fact that she was a lesbian, a parallel to actress Ellen
Degeneres' real life coming out several years prior to the show. In this episode, Ellen
talked with her therapist about her fears around this revelation, including disclosing to her
parents. She observes, “Nobody bakes a cake for you when you discover your sexuality
that says ‘Good for You, You're Gay! "'

For many gays and lesbians their coming out process evokes similar fears
(Hetrick & Martin, 1987). They not only fear lack of validation fi'om loved ones, but also
overt hostility. Although disclosure to loved ones is an important developmental step in a
coming out process where the optimal end is self-acceptance and pride, the fear of
rejection fiom their parents often propels the gay or lesbian person to develop strategies
to hide or change their sexual orientation (Mallon, 1992). However, if gays or lesbians
continue to hide behind heterosexual facades, roles, and behaviors, they become deprived
of their own emotional life. This strategy of deception interferes with most of the
relationships within the family that the gay or lesbian person attempts to maintain,
creating a greater sense of isolation and decreased levels of family functioning (Bozzett
& Sussman, 1989). Although there has been past research designed to investigate the
effects of the coming out process on families, (Beeler & DiProva, 1999; Bozzett &
Sussman, 1989; Cramer & Roach, 1988; Cramer & Roach, 1988; Savin-Williams &
Dube, 1998) most of the data gathered comes from the gay or lesbian person's
experience. Clearly, there is a need for research around the area of family of origin and

the ability of parents to accept their children’s gay or lesbian identities. While there are a

number of books aimed at helping parents "cope" with the discovery that their child is
gay or lesbian (e. g., Fairchild & Hayward, 1989), there remains a large void in research
identifying family strengths and weaknesses to this end. The subjective exploration of
accepting parents will likely provide valuable insights necessary to the development of
grounded theory in the area of parental adjustment following the disclosure of a son’s gay
identity. Additionally, this information may be utilized in the construction of a strengths
model that will inform clinical practice with families experiencing the coming out
process.
Conceptual Framework

A pictorial synthesis of the concepts used to operationalize this study is
represented by the conceptual map presented in Figure 1.1. The concepts posited by
human ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992) and family ecology theory
(Bubolz and Sontag, 1993) are central to this study and will be discussed more
extensively in the section addressing theoretical perspectives. This figure illustrates the
influence of various ecosystemic considerations on the coming out process for gays and
their families. Circles are used to represent these environments. An ecomap is utilized to
assess the influence of the various systems on the parents’ coming out processes.
Ecomaps are fi'equently used by clinicians to identify and highlight connections and
reciprocity between families and their environments, and may be a useful tool to bridge
research with practice (Harold, Mercier & Colarossi, 1997). The disclosure of the son’s
gay identity to the parent is an essential step of identity acquisition for the child and
represents the interface of the two processes. Disclosure marks the “official” beginning

9 6‘

of the parent 5 coming out” process, which includes an initial reaction indicating the

early parental acceptance level. This map conceptualizes parental acceptance at different
points in time fi'om initial disclosure to present. A negative trajectory towards rejection
is conceptualized to occur when the parent is unable to resist negative attitudes, feelings,
and beliefs prevalent in society. The parent colludes with the system of oppression and
further perpetuates societal heterosexisrn and homophobia. The conceptualization
includes the possibility of mediating variables that may contribute to a positive trajectory
towards acceptance. If the parent experiences positive influences fiom the primary
systems regarding his or her coming out process, s/he will experience dissonance when
confionted with homophobia and heterosexism, rejecting negative messages, and
propelling towards acceptance. Parents who are accepting will also exert positive
influence on the systems in which they are embedded. The relationship between the
parent and child is believed to affect and be affected by the coming out processes for

each. Therefore, the relationship between the parents and sons is observed across time.

commenced 363m baa”.
38m 32 .mssmessam 3282 3335
comma—um . . -
82 £2 £2 baggage e
D

98er Be nuance on. deface—"£5 0%.? 853a:

  

“sierra” _

    

 

     

 

              

 

 

gummoom no 853%: _.
9 ., . e
a
, $2 doaaobm
wwfldfifih V mn— emE :3 .8 augmbsmono
$2 28 to am a.
2.2 .95 8:838 4/
:oufiwoufi <
02.8303}
_
$.38 cough—egg _

_
$265544.

icdfifzm

1' .
Masai/A... a \

 

 

 

8:328
cm. 0

 

5:00.31
U809:— mMOUOLh 3.253%
:5 usage “.35 M .5 usage mane:— M
. _
SQ MEEQD S 3.2% K
Alessanax asuanesm
“#2 339280 <

339.02 .30 .28 we Busqooo< 3:23 no 8053?: oggoom
~.— 9:55

Theoretical Framework

Understanding the process by which parents achieve various levels of acceptance
of the gay or lesbian sexual identity of their children may best be achieved by looking at
this process in the context of several relevant theories and developing a blended theory
which incorporates aspects of each. Human ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
1986,1992) and family ecology theory (Bubolz and Sontag, 1993) provide a useful
fiamework to explore the systemic influences on the coming out process of the child as
gay or lesbian and the parent's subsequent acceptance or rejection of that identity as they
navigate a process of their own. This model attends specifically to context as it identifies
the relationship between sexual identity alterations and larger social forces. For this
reason, human ecological theory is chosen to provide a theoretical backdrop for the
exploration of the coming out processes of both the parent and child, which is delineated
in several models of gay identity formation. In particular, systems theory, research, and
clinical case studies articulate the postulate that relationships with family members and
the overall quality of the family system play a major part in the construction of the self
and the world (Elizur & Minuchin, 1989.)
Human Ecology Theory

Human ecology theory suggests the integral relationship of human beings with a
natural ecosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner emphasizes the importance
of four principle environmental systems when studying the development of human
beings. These environmental systems are conceptualized as a nested design in order of
proximity to the human being. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines these systems as follows:

Microsystem- The family as a whole is the principally recognized

rnicrosystern, however, various combinations of individuals may compose

dyads, triads, or larger sub-groups to form separate microsystems.

Mesosystem- This includes all systems in which the developing person is
active, such as school, social activities, or community.

Exosystem- These are systems in which individuals relevant to the
developing person are involved, creating a vicarious influence on the
individual. Social networks or work environment provide examples.

Macrosystem-This system relates to the broad ideological values,
norms, and institutional policies in which all of the systems are embedded.

This system provides cultural definition which influences the way in which

various systems operate.

Thus, all beings and environments are interconnected, making it impossible to
view any part as totally separate from the whole. Bronfenbrenner (1986) also proposed
the chronosystem for the purpose of examining how these various systems influence
human development over time. The chronosystem conceptualizes time in relation to the
continuity of or changes in development of the person .

Bronfenbrenner’s (197 9) early conceptualization of the environmental influence
on the developing human being is a useful paradigm for this study. It is strengthened
however by adding the concepts implicit in the Process-Person-Context Model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992). This model attends not only to the influence of the
environmental characteristics on developmental processes, but also recognizes personal
characteristics of the individual as an intervening influence. In fact, this model

appreciates the joint function of environmental and personal characteristics working

together to produce a more substantial effect on development than either does by itself.
Bronfenbrenner (1992) defines the two key defining properties of this model as follows:

1. The design permits assessment not only of developmental outcomes but also
of the effectiveness of the processes producing these outcomes (p. 199).

2. The design reveals how both developmental outcomes and processes vary as a
joint function of the characteristics of the person and of the environment, thus
permitting the detection of synergistic effects (p.200).

Family Ecology Theory

Bubolz and Sontag's (1993) representation of family ecology recognizes the
synergistic relationship between general systems theory and human ecological theory as a
useful means to achieve understanding of families. They distinguish between human
ecosystems, which they describe as "a particular kind of living system comprised of
humans in interaction with their environment" (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993, p. 424) and
family ecosystems, which they describe as a subset of human ecosystems that are aptly
described using general systems concepts. These concepts include notions of openness,
permeability, input and output between the parts and wholes, and positive and negative
feedback loops.

According to Bubolz and Sontag (1993), the structure of family ecosystems can
be understood by recognizing the diverse characteristics that define families such as
structure, ethnic origin, life stage and socioeconomic status. A further appreciation
occurs when individual and family attributes, such as needs, values, goals, resources and
artifacts are understood. The various parts and wholes are interconnected and have a

reciprocal influence on one another while being shaped by beliefs, characteristics, and

behaviors of each individual in relation to the other (Bristor, 1990). Finally, the
interaction in diverse environments contributes the complexity of family processes,
which include transformation of energy and information through adaptive processes such
as perception, decision making, organization, management, communication, use of
technology, sustenance activities and human development (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). The
developing individual assumes different roles in different microsystems with occurrences
in one microsystern subsequently affecting the others and ultimately affecting societal
processes inherent in the macrosystem (Bubolz and Sontag, 1993).

Family ecology theory suggests that environments do not directly determine
human behavior. However, they impose constraints and limitations and provide
possibilities and opportunities (Bubolz and Sontag, 1993). Human beings are varied as to
their opportunities or abilities to control and change their environmental interactions
(Bristor, 1990). Andrews, Bubolz, and Paolucci (1980) identify change as a primary
facet of family ecosystems, recognizing the dynamic nature of the family and calling
attention to the perpetual state of modification that the family endures. When a family
member comes out as gay or lesbian, such modifications are likely to occur. Bristor
(1990) states that ecosystems equipped with diverse knowledge and skills have a greater
opportunity for successful adaptation than those without such resources.

Narrative Study

Postmodern approaches may be particularly useful in the study of families and
family relationships given the complexity of these interactions. Social constructivism in
particular appreciates the natural tendency for human beings to story their experiences

relevant to their own perceptions (Moules, 2000). These personal narratives and the

10

realities created by them contribute significantly to the development of self-concept
Gergen, 1985; Gergen, & Gergen, 1988) as well as behavior. Narrative construction
involves unconscious, preconscious and conscious processes whereby people attempt to
organize their life experiences in a way that helps them make sense of life events (Gergen
& Gergen, 1988). These narratives also inform present realities and have the power to
shape future experiences (Borden, 1992). A collective of several self-narratives
expressed through language contributes to the development of stories, wherein people
become historians of their own lives.

Stories are literally structured components that include a broad diversity of
characters, plots and themes and outcomes. They are also a useful metaphor for the
natural construction of people’s lived experiences. When people are asked to create
stories through language they may be afforded the opportunity to access and express parts
of their experience that had previously been less apparent to them (Schnitzer, 1993).
There are four primary characteristics central to the constitution of the story which
includes the following (Schnitzer, 1993, p. 444):

1. One rendition of the said and unsaid

2. A chronicle across time

3. Story-telling interaction

4. An expression of dominant narratives, including cultural influences.

The story metaphor is particularly appropriate for the coming out process, in that several
conscious and unconscious factors are involved, and given the perpetual nature of this
process it is best chronicled over time. Although the parents may go through a similar

process overall, the individual stories will capture the most meaningful aspects for each

11

parent and appreciate the unique characteristics across stories. These stories may become
an anchoring source for the parents, their sons, and the families as a whole (White &
Epston, 1990).

These stories of acceptance also have the ability to influence the systems with
which the parents interact. While stories do not cause people to act in a certain way, they
are powerful in shaping or guiding behavior, especially when people experience
unexpected events (Borden, 1992). Parents who cannot get beyond their negative
feelings related to their sons’ gay identities will likely get trapped in negative and
constraining themes around the “problem” that will limit their abilities to find desirable
ways to address the situation as a whole. Conversely, positive narratives may allow
parents to consolidate their previously held beliefs about their sons with their discovery
that their son is gay. They may re-story their lives in a way that offers new options for
the parent-child relationship and contributes to a more positive life experience than they
might have even imagined (White & Epston, 1990). When these stories are gathered and
analyzed through qualitative research methods, they will provide rich information that
can be used to inform clinical practice and subsequent research (Harold, Palmiter, Lynch,
& Freedman-Doan, 1995).

Description of Theoretical Map

Figure 1.2 is a pictorial representation of the primary theoretical concepts that
guide this study. The consecutive rings on the outside depict the ecosystemic
environment as outlined by human ecology theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979,1986).

The concepts of heterosexisrn and homophobia are believed to be relevant across all of

these systems and are included to illustrate the limitations imposed upon the developing

12

gay person and family members through cultural and societal conventions (Blurnenfeld,
1992; Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1982; Foster, Murray, & Bowen, 1996; Troiden, 1988).
Family ecology theory is relevant to the diverse characteristics of the families and how
people process information and is represented in closer proximity to the parent-child
relationship as it likely helps to explain how the coming out process is managed by the
parents, the sons and the families as a whole. The influences of the various systemic
environments are believed to affect the parent’s self-narratives.

The process of narrative construction happens within the context of their
experiences and contributes to the meanings they ascribe and how they use these
meanings to inform their current and future beliefs and behavior (White & Epston, 1990).
According to this model, individuals — in the present case, the parents» will select
different parts of their experiences from the past and present, as well as their expectations
for the future and connect them in a sequence that helps to create their self-narratives
(Gergen, 1985). This process will result in a “story” (Schnitzer, 1993) of the
parents’coming out processes and subsequent acceptance of their sons’ gay identities.
This research privileges the experiences and stories of parents who have successfully
negotiated a coming out process of their own and have reached acceptance of their sons’

gay identities.

l3

I/
I
I I,
\\ s I
\ \ I/ I

\ I

\ l/
\ \
\\ \
\ \

 

noun .u

  

 

\\\\\\\\ r\ a . o
111111111 \ III «oo— 32 2.9— gm
\\\\\\\\\ I“
\ , 3531"
I, .
I
I .
/

s

I/
/
K I
I
/ I
I I
I I
I I
I I
g .l . I/
I0 II
. I

 

 

 

A

g
Eggs-Ea
gflaflfiacoaaflnflwuq< o.

doggm e
.sauQSEIniEEEfiZ<.¢

as. B.

nfiuflfiaoaaaiflueflu.0 I
"been me 85:2?an ,

 

 

 

 

\
llllllll

 

 

 

 

 

 

a; gun—soon
a 0549.395- 1 and... a 98

 

mad-.00 anon. afloa- fag

 

 

l4

Assumptions and Propositions
Assumptions

Several assumptions shape the researcher's perspective concerning this study.
Assumptions are statements that are presumed to be fact, or taken as a given in the
research process. These assumptions are not subject to empirical testing (Reynolds,
1971). It is important not only to be aware of the assumptions that drive the research but
also to make these assumptions explicit when possible to increase the reliability and
validity of the project. (Fetterman, 1989). These will be presented in terms of broad and
domain assumptions. Broad assmnptions are statements that relate to the concepts
underlying the project as a whole, while domain assumptions are particular to specific
concepts.
Broad Assumptions

Assumption 1. This study employs an ecological research model. This research
model is widely interpreted (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bubolz & Sontag, 1993).
However, there is a basic assumption that human beings are in constant interaction with
their environment, and that they reciprocally influence one another. Specifically, we
must assume that this relationship is real and orderly, and can be measured both directly
through observation and indirectly through empirical methodology.
Domain Assumptions

Assumption 1. There is a developmental process by which people acquire or form
gay identities (Cass,1979, Coleman, 1982; Troiden, 1988).

Assumption 2. Parents of gay children go through a developmental process to

acquire an identity as a the "parent of a gay child." (Beeler & DiProva, 1999; Crosbie-

15

Burnett et al., 1996, Strommen,1989).

Assumption 3. The coming out process of both the child and the parent is
influenced by several levels of the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992).
Assumption 4. All levels of the ecosystemic environment are affected by homophobia and
heterosexism. (See discussions in Blumenfeld, 1992.)

Assumption 5. The coming out of a child as gay precipitates a crisis for the family as a
whole and various stages must be negotiated to successfully resolve the crisis (Elizur &
Ziv, 2001)

Propositions

Propositions assert hypothesized relationships between concepts. The
relationships that are observed between concepts contribute to the construction of theory.
The following propositions are relevant to this study.

Proposition 1. Systemic factors will determine the level to which a parent accepts his or
her son’s gay identity.

Proposition 2. The type of support received by the parent will likely influence the level
of acceptance concerning his or her son’s gay identity.

Proposition 3. If the parent is able to accept his or her son's gay identity, then s/he will be
able to accept his or her own identity as the "parent of a gay son" and vice-versa.
Proposition 4. Parents will assign meaning to their environments through the narrative
process.

Proposition 5. A parent’s story of his or her own coming out process has the potential to

influence and be useful to others.

16

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Gay and Lesbian Inquiry
Models of Gay and Lesbian Identity Formation

Several authors have suggested a sequence of stages that take place in a
developmental process of gay or lesbian identity formation (Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1982;
Troiden, 1988). Although different taxonomies are used to delineate this process, the
concepts are closely related and share many common themes. Troiden’s (1988) and
Coleman's (1982) models identify an early stage wherein the gay or lesbian person has an
initial awareness or sensitization feeling that s/he is somehow "different.” At this stage,
the person does not generally relate this feeling to sexual orientation although many
report feeling that they possessed atypical gender attributes from an early age (Coleman,
1982). Generally, they report that their social experiences played a larger role in
generating these feelings of being different than either sexual attractions or engagement
in sexual activity (Troiden, 1988). This is a rather nebulous stage because the
information gathered is largely a retrospective analysis of gays and lesbians describing
their feelings and recollections after they have progressed through subsequent stages.
The feelings apparently took on greater meaning when they were attached to homosexual
feelings and attractions in adolescence or adulthood (Troiden, 1988).

During the next stage, the gay or lesbian person experiences confusion as s/he

begins to question previously held assumptions of heterosexuality. Cass (1979) identifies

l7

this as the initial stage in her model, rather than speaking to the awareness state
encompassed in the other two models. Gay or lesbian individuals begin to associate their
feelings of being different with the possibility that they might be gay or lesbian, which
contradicts their previously held self-image (Cass, 1979) Gays and Lesbians at this stage
often sense a growing anxiety over perception of themselves as gay or lesbian (Coleman,
1982). These individuals may also experience feelings of isolation and alienation as they
realize the ramifications of being a member of a stigmatized group (Cass, 1979). They
may employ several methods to ease their anxiety including denial, avoiding situations
that intensify same-sex desire, assuming heterosexual characteristics and roles, and
rationalization (Troiden,l988). As they continue to put forth effort to deny their identity,
they will remain immobilized in the coming out process and remain at this level. If they
find the identity desirable, they will continue along the developmental process (Cass,
1979)

If the gay or lesbian person decides that this identity is appropriate, s/he will
begin to engage in activities that enable him or her to explore this aspect of his or her self
more thoroughly (Cass, 1979). This stage is often characterized by increased interaction
with other members of the gay and lesbian community and participation in gay culture.
At this time, the gay or lesbian individual may engage in sexual relationships (Troiden,
1988). An essential task for the gay or lesbian person in the process of identity formation
is the act of "coming out" to others by sharing his or her gay or lesbian identity with
them. Often, the gay or lesbian person is more likely to share his or her identity with
others who are perceived as "safe.” This is most commonly other gays and lesbians.

Sometimes, however, s/he will share information concerning his or her gay or lesbian

18

identity with heterosexual individuals s/he perceives as likely to be supportive (Coleman,
1982). This can be a time of relative serenity for the gay or lesbian because s/he has
answered questions about who s/he is and where s/he belongs (Cass, 1979).

As gays and lesbians become more attached to their sexual identity, they begin to
recognize the ramifications of prejudicial behavior on many aspects of their lives. Their
developing pride in their identity may be accompanied by anger towards the people and
institutions working to keep them in a marginalized position (Cass, 1979). Their anger
and fierce loyalty towards their group as a whole may propel them into action to fight
against the injustices through various levels of activism. Troiden (1988) characterizes the
final stage as “identity commitment.” At this developmental stage, the gay or lesbian
individuals would not change even if they were given the chance.

Cass (1979) offers an additional stage in the process of gay or lesbian identity
formation. She postulates that if interactions with members of the heterosexual
community are consistently and pervasively negative, the gay or lesbian will remain in a
state in which s/he dichotomizes gays and lesbians as predominantly good and
heterosexuals as predominantly bad. She believes that acknowledging many sides of
their character beyond their sexuality when gay and lesbian individuals are able to
experience positive interactions with heterosexuals across time and circumstance, enables
the former to refine their anger and pride and hold it in less emotional terms. This allows
them to see themselves in a more holistic nature. They are able to develop lifestyles in
which their identity is not hidden, but integrated across different pieces of their lives. At
any rate, identity management is likely to be a concern that permeates the gay or lesbian

individual's interactions across time and circumstance.

19

Family Adjustment to a Member “Coming Out "

Coming out represents a change in previously held concepts about self. This
transformation happens within the relational and social contexts of the particular
individual (Massey, 1986; Oswald, 2000). A social interdependence exists between the
gay or lesbian person and the relationship systems in which he or she exists. As
individuals come out to themselves and disclose their gay or lesbian identities to those in
their family or other relationship systems, the information also influences the persons to
whom the disclosure was made (Massey, 1986). Therefore, coming out is a process of
significant change not only for individuals who accept and disclose their gay or lesbian
identities but also for the individuals to which they disclose this identity.

The process by which parents come to accept or reject their children's gay or
lesbian identity is not well documented. Various authors have identified a model of loss,
which closely resembles Kubler-Ross' (1969) stages of grieving the death of a loved one.
They propose models for progression through a series of stages. These stages include
shock, denial, guilt, anger, and eventual acceptance (Bernstein, 1990; Bozzett &
Sussman, 1989). Crosbie-Burnett, and her associates (1996) delineate a model of
adjustment that assumes a developmental process for family members of gays or lesbians
in relation to their own identity of having a gay or lesbian relative. This model offers
several loosely ordered stages that family members progress through towards eventual
acceptance of another member's gay or lesbian identity, and acceptance of themselves as
a relative of a gay or lesbian. These stages parallel those offered in the identity formation
models for gays and lesbians. They begin with initial suspicion, followed by disclosure

and reaction, moving through confusion and anxiety, and finally reaching a place of

20

acknowledgment, support, and affirmation (Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1982; Crosbie-Burnett
et al., 1996, Troiden, 1988). The application of this model to gays' and lesbians' family of
origin promotes understanding of the interactions between members both cognitively and
behaviorally within their shared physical and social environment and with varying
environments in which the family is embedded (Crosbie-Burnett, 1996).
Heterosexism and Homophobia

A common assumption held by theorists addressing gay and lesbian identity
formation is that it takes place in an arena surrounded by stigma and prejudice (Cass,
1979; Coleman, 1982; Crosbie-Burnett et al., 1996: Troiden, 1988). Previous research
indicates that homophobia is prevalent in many facets of society, and has psychological
ramifications for both homosexually and heterosexually oriented individuals (Fomstein,
1988). The synthesis of homophobia and heterosexism encourage and perpetuate the
negative stereotypes necessary to maintain hostility and prejudicial behaviors towards
gays and lesbians. Homophobia has been defined as an irrational fear or hatred of gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals (See Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1993). The definition may be
expanded to include prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought
on by this fear. Heterosexism may be defined as the assumption that everyone is
heterosexual: social structures which serve to elevate or enforce heterosexuality with
subordination or suppression of homosexuality. Cultural heterosexism involves the
promotion by society in general as the only legitimate expression of sexuality and
affection (Herek, 1995). It includes both explicit teachings of heterosexual normativity
and tacit communtication of this ideal through society’s norms, institutions, laws, cultural

forms, and scientific practices (Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1993).

21

Influences of Homophobia on Ecosystemic Environments

Research has found a relationship between homophobia and several variables.
There is a moderate body of research investigating homophobic attitudes in individuals to
fear of AIDS (Bouton, Gallagher, Garlinghouse, & Leal, 1989; Eliason & Raheim, 1996;
Harnmersmith, 1987; Nyberg & Alston, 1976). The relationship of religion to both fear
of AIDS and homophobia has also been studied. Religious and political conservatism has
been correlated with higher levels of homophobia (Bouton et al., 1989; Wylie & Forest,
1992). Results found no relationship between religiosity and AIDS-phobia. However,
they revealed differing levels of homophobia across denominations. Regular attendance
of church appears to have a positive correlation with homophobia, while lack of
attendance altogether results in lower levels of homophobia (Kunkel & Temple, 1992).

Several studies investigated the relationship between exposure and/or interaction
with gays, lesbian, or bisexuals and levels of homophobia. Participants who reported
knowing somebody personally or having a gay or lesbian friend exhibited lower levels of
homophobia. They were also more likely to intervene when derogatory comments were
being made concerning gays, lesbians, or bisexuals (Eliason & Raheim, 1996). Data was
collected from students at a southeastern metropolitan university who experienced three
hours of exposure to gay males and lesbians, in which they were encouraged to ask
questions and interact with them. Another group was not exposed to gays or lesbians.
Results indicated that interaction was correlated with lower levels of homophobia,
lending credence and support for the hypotheses that greater contact with gays and
lesbians lessens fear and has a mitigating effect on homophobia (Lance, 1992).

It is important to consider the limitations that heterosexism and homophobia

22

place upon family ecosystems in terms of promoting gay and lesbian identity
development in individuals and families. Generally speaking, coming out results in
varying degrees of conflict that can be alleviated over time if family members are able to
transcend heterosexist and homophobic values and beliefs found in many facets of
society (Oswald, 2000).
Stigma and Gay and Lesbian Identity

Gays and lesbians have traditionally suffered stigrnatization and negative
consequences, including discrimination, limited access to opportunities, limited legal
protection for relationships and general difficulty in interpersonal relationships (Crocker
& Major, 1989). This unfavorable treatment stems fiom beliefs about the inherent
inferiority of the group members that are associated with their identifying characteristics.
Not all sources of human stigma are equally visible (Goffrnan, 1963). When membership
in a stigmatized group is not easily observable or apparent, it is at the discretion of the
individuals as to whether or not they want to reveal membership in the group. Gays and
lesbians often worry about the potential for being discredited once their sexual identity is
revealed. Moreover, there is a worry that once they are stigmatized for being gay or
lesbian, they will be scrutinized negatively by members of the larger group and the
stigrnatizing characteristic will be given primacy over their other characteristics (Bohan,
1996.)

For stigmatized individuals such as gays and lesbians, the issue of identity
management becomes crucial to their lives. Sexual identity management requires
vigilance to cues in the social environment (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998). Decisions

regarding revelation and concealment are made based on both deliberations about how to

23

manage personal information and the social context (Cain, 1991).

The issue becomes one of, “to be or not to be. . .out.” That is the question.
Openness about one’s identity has been associated with increased psychological
adjustment and well-being (Cain, 1991; Cass, 1979), however there is still the issue of
having to manage the stigma and adverse consequences surrounding it should the gay or
lesbian person decide to be honest about his or her identity. When an integration strategy
is used, gay or lesbian individuals reveal their true identity and attempt to manage the
consequences. In most cases, a person must explicitly reveal that he or she is gay or
lesbian since sexual identity is not usually a visible source of stigma (Goffrnan, 1963).
Silence implicitly supports heterosexist assumptions. When gays or lesbians opt to be
open about their identity they may do so either directly or indirectly (Cain, 1991). They
may indirectly drop “clues” or look for opportunities to directly tell people they perceive
might be accepting. This may occur during a series of personal conversations or by
taking the opportunity to correct heterosexual assumptions when they occur (Woods,

1 993).

If the gay or lesbian person wishes to hide his or her identity, she may employ
several techniques (Woods, 1993). One technique is known as “counterfeiting” and
involves constructing a false heterosexual identity that is portrayed to people the gay or
lesbian person senses might be hostile towards them based on the stigma surrounding
them This heterosexual facade may involve actually fabricating heterosexual
relationships, lying about personal issues related to being gay or lesbian or generally
denying anything that would indicate a gay or lesbian identity. At a lesser level, gays and

lesbians may simply avoid doing or saying anything that would stereotypically be

24

associated with being gay or lesbian. They may simply elude personal questions, talk in
generalities, or change the focus of conversation. They may tend to avoid social events
where people are typically expected to bring a spouse or date (Woods, 1993). The
benefits and consequences of either approach are given careful consideration and usually
the decision about whether to disclose is context driven (F rable et al., 1998).
Disclosure and Reaction

Although responses to disclosure have been shown to be influenced by the context
of disclosure (Ben Ari, 1995) and family background (Newman & Muzzonigro, 1993),
Waldner and Magruder (1999) speak to the fact that it may be more difficult for gay or
lesbian individuals to disclose their sexuality when they perceive positive family
relations. They fear that such a disclosure could be disadvantageous because it would
threaten the heterosexual norms established within their family systems. Gays or lesbians
who suspect that their parents possess remedial problem solving skills may also have a
difficult time disclosing their gay or lesbian identity (Cramer & Roach, 1988). Gays and
lesbians may fear that the parents will try to make them “change” or that they will not
affirm their gay or lesbian identities. Disclosure, however, is a crucial developmental
task for the child and marks the beginning of the parent’s own coming out process
(Crosbie-Burnett et a1, 1996). Once the gay or lesbian child decides to disclose their
sexual identity to their parents, a broad range of emotions and reactions may occur. The
most common reactions are shock, denial, guilt, sadness and blame (Savin-Williams &
Dube, 1998). Parental reaction may also include involuntary psychiatric hospitalization,
estrangement, violence and threats (LaSala, 2000). Some parents are able to navigate

their way towards acceptance, understanding, and affirmation, while others remain

25

immobilized and maintain a rejecting stance. In many cases, parental attitudes may
change with time (LaSala, 2000).

Research has indicated a trend in the patterns of disclosure within families. In
particular, studies indicate that children disclose their sexual orientation to their mothers
more often than their fathers (Boxer, Cook, & Herdt, 1991; D’Augelli, 2001; Savin-
Williams, 1998). While these studies provide a quantification of trends relating to
disclosure patterns, much less is known about the lived experiences of these gay and
lesbian individuals who disclose to their parents. Even less is known about the lived
experience of the parents whose children disclosed to them. Moreover, narrative
descriptions that articulate the experiences are lacking. Much of the literature has
focused on the consequences of coming out to family members, but relatively little has
been documented that articulates the turning points fiom confusion, disapproval, or anger
to the eventual acceptance experienced by the parents in response to the initial disclosure.

Resources

Resources, both internal and external, or lack thereof may help to explain the
various levels of acceptance that are reached by parents (Beeler & DiProva, 1999). Many
researchers speak to the importance of gays and lesbians developing networks with other
gays and lesbians to promote identity development (Cass, 1979; Troiden, 1988).
However, there is a void in the literature concerning this, with the exception of a few
studies including a small qualitative study by Beeler and DiProva (1999). Research with
gay men and lesbians indicated that friends are more fi'equent providers of social support
than the family (Kurdek, 1988; Kurdeck & Schrnitt, 1987). Research has established that

gay-affirming resources are important for the identity development of gay or lesbian

26

individuals because they encourage identity expression and create opportunities for same-
sex interaction and other involvement in the gay and lesbian community (Gonsiorek &
Rudolph, 1991). The availability of gay and lesbian organizations, supportive fiiendships
and counselors are important resources for identity development. Research on the
presence of support and resources for family members of gays and lesbians who are
attempting to work through their feelings about this issue is largely missing fi'om the
literature. Resources are available to these individuals in terms of therapy (LaSala, 2000)
and support groups such as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-
F LAG; www.pflag.org) a national organization founded in 1981 that provides monthly
meetings, telephone help-lines, one-to-one support, speaker’s bureaus, newsletters, youth
groups, spouses’ support groups, and family AIDS support.
Relationships Between Gays and Lesbians and Their Parents

The dominant themes addressed in the professional literature concerning gay and
lesbians and family relationships focus primarily on gays and lesbians as parents, the
coming out process as it relates to adolescents, and AIDS. Despite increasing interest on
the part of researchers concerning the topic of gay and lesbian relationships within the
context of their families of origin, there remains a dearth of information that relates
specifically to the quality of these relationships. Research that focuses specifically on the
characteristics of accepting and non-accepting families or which defines levels of
acceptance is largely absent from the literature, with the exception of a few small studies,
such as one assessing parental values and characteristics related to homophobia and
changes in acceptance fi'om initial disclosure (Cramer & Roach, 1988).

When family of origin is addressed, it is generally for the purpose of illustrating

27

common reaction to disclosure (Savin-Williams & Dube, 1998). Much of this literature
relates to disclosure to parents by gay and lesbian youth (Boxer & Cohler, 1989;
D'Augelli, 2001; Durby, 1994; Hetrick & Martin, 1987). Traditionally, parents have been
misinformed that the reason for their child's sexual orientation is related to some
deficiency in their parenting style or role modeling (Mallon, 1992).

Although Devine (1984) comments on the developmental stages that families
must go through to move towards acceptance of a gay or lesbian child, parent and child
characteristics that promote or impede acceptance are not addressed. Similarly, Crosbie-
Burnett's (1996) model of social-cognitive adjustment is theoretical in nature and does
not explore family relationships empirically. However, the authors identify many relevant
topics related to family relationships, and list them as substantive research questions with
a call for further research in the area or family of origin adjustment.

A comprehensive study of lesbian families (Slater, 1994) contains an isolated
comment concerning interaction with family of origin however, is limited to one
interaction and ignores the nuances of the relationship between the daughter and her
family. Similarly, Benkov's (1994) study concerning lesbians with children fails to
explore the issue of family of origin relationships other than in a cursory fashion. Other
research concerning gay and lesbian couple relationships (e.g., Kurdek & Schmitt, 1987;
Levy, 1989; Murphy, 1989) contain isolated data on some aspects of family relationships
but again, fails to explore this issue in depth other than to offer occasional vignettes.

One body of research explores the process of family firnctioning in response to
the AIDS crisis (Walker, 1991). Although this research looks more in-depth at the gay or

lesbian individual’s family of origin, it is primarily focused on the crisis of AIDS in a

28

child rather than investigating acceptance or rejection of the child's identity.

In conclusion, there currently is a paucity of information about the relationships
existing between gay and lesbian individuals and other family members. Using
qualitative research to further explore the coming out process of the parents is expected to
provide a deeper and richer understanding of the characteristics of accepting families than

currently exists.

29

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Qualitative Methodology

Qualitative research is an interactive and transformational process involving
close interaction with the researcher, participants, and the data (Sword, 1999). While
quantitative research provides an understanding of general trends and knowledge,
qualitative methods provide a more specific and profound understanding of a
phenomenon (Gerhart, Ratliff, & Randall, 2001 ). Qualitative research provides in-depth
descriptions and explanations to the flow of events in a contextual setting (Miles and
Huberman, 1994.)

There has been a growing trend towards the use of qualitative research in the
farme sciences (Daly, 1992; Sprenkle & Moon, 1996). Proponents of qualitative
methodology cite the inadequacy of traditional scientific methods as a vehicle to
understanding the complexities of family systems (Rosenau, 1992.) Positivistic
approaches do not lend themselves to the circularity of the human experience because
they attempt to reduce data to an objective “truth” rather than appreciating the subjective
meanings that are inherent in the study of human beings (Gilgun, 1992; White & Epston,
1990.) Qualitative research appreciates the importance of context as it influences the
manner in which humans construct their realities. It also assumes that knowledge is
socially constructed and that the investigator has the power to greatly impact this
construction during the research process (Rosenau, 1992). Embracing qualitative

methodology does not imply, however that there is no value in traditional quantitative

30

approaches. In fact, a move towards pluralism in family research will likely help
researchers capitalize on the strengths of each approach rather than engaging in continued
debate over the superiority of one over the other (Sprenlde & Moon, 1996.)

Qualitative research is well suited to this particular study, which seeks to identify
and understand both the subjective experiences and attributes of parents who are
accepting of their sons’ gay identities. The use of qualitative methodology will better
appreciate the diversity of ecosystemic influences, including systemic homophobia and
heterosexism, that have contributed to the parents’ construction of meaning around their
sons’ gay identities.

The detailed descriptions and explanations that flow fiom qualitative research are
needed to obtain the data sought in this research since the focus is on exploration rather
than quantifying variables (Daly, 1992). Traditionally, theories of family development
have utilized somewhat narrow definitions of family. The use of grounded theory
approaches may assist in developing broader theories of family development that
recognize and appreciate the diversity of families, such as the families in this project.
Studying families who have successfirlly integrated a member’s gay or lesbian identity
using a grounded theory approach may contribute to the development of theories around
the strengths these families possess.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory was developed for the purpose of closing
“the embarrassing gap between theory and empirical research.” (Sprenkle, 1996, p 66).
Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology, in which the researcher

systematically develops theory by weaving observations of phenomena and

31

abstractions from these observations with previous research and theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Data are collected through interviews, observations, or review of written,
audio or video sources (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Grounded theory offers a mechanism
for the analysis of vernacular representations and concurrently provides a theoretical
richness to the exploration of phenomena. An empirical iterative approach is used to
collect and analyze data and the theory is constantly modified as the process of data
collection and data analysis continues and is checked against empirical findings (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990). Implicit in grounded theory is the notion that phenomena are dynamic.
Theories come to light fi'om the “theoretical saturation of meaning, patterns, and
categories” (Sprenkle & Moon, 1996, p. 65). Theoretical sensitivity reflects the
investigator’s ability to use personal and professional experiences, as well as the
literature, to see the research situation in new ways and use the data to promote the
development of new theory (Straus & Corbin, 1990).

The concept of dynamics is critical to understanding the child-parent coming out
process. A parent’s acceptance is a function of family system concepts that relate to all
parent-child relationships, such as family dynamics, trust and communication skills. In
addition, the parent’s acceptance will also reflect complex issues relating to sexual
identity formation, including homophobia, heterosexism and the coming out process (for
both the child and the parent). All of these factors are a part of evolving family systems.
Grounded theory provides the best vehicle to gather and analyze such complex
phenomena. Grounded theory leads to the development of pattern theories, in which the
interacting factors are arranged horizontally (Gilgun, 1992). Pattern theory is in contrast

to hierarchical theory, where hypotheses are deduced from general principles and tested

32

against facts (Gilgun, 1992). The emphasis is on making the theories as rich as possible
rather than on proving instantiations of hypotheses or applications of previous theories.
In pattern theory the focus is on attempting to understand diverse, individual settings,
whereas in hierarchical theory the approach may mask individuality and lead to
“norming” a family (Gilgun, 1992.)

Given the diverse scope of parental responses to disclosure including physical
violence, involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, estrangement, denial, sadness and guilt,
an approach that highlights individual nuances is critical (LaSala, 2000.) Research
suggests that in many cases parental attitudes may improve with time (LaSala, 2000.)
The dynamic nature of the process further complicates the process of obtaining data.

The “patterning” process inherent in grounded theory likely provides the most effective
vehicle for gathering and analyzing the data in this research project.

Grounded theory suggests that theory development works fi'om the substantive
level, which includes descriptive components to the formal level of abstraction as
constant comparison proceeds over time (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As information is
detailed substantively, it may explain many dimensions of a given research question. As
substantive data are collected and compared, theory begins to develop as comparisons are
made across substantive cases and are checked against previous research.

Feminist Inquiry

Feminist inquiry contains several primary tenets that drive this research. Implicit
in feminist approaches to the research process is the emphasis on the subjective
experience of the individual. Laird (2001) calls for both the uses of an ethnographic

stance and a narrative stance when approaching the issues central to the lives of gays and

33

lesbians. She favors an approach where the investigator is informed yet does not claim to
know everything. A narrative stance empowers individuals to be the expert of their own
life experience (White & Epston, 1990). Laird (2001) suggests that culture is fluid and
emergent, always moving and changing, as people constantly recreate themselves, their
narratives and, in turn, are themselves changed (p.74). By privileging these experiences
in clinical practice and in the research process, hierarchies are leveled and a more
collaborative stance is achieved (Anderson & Goolishian, 1992). Also, a narrative
approach to research may help in the deconstruction of cultural self-narratives which
have roots in social and family experiences that privilege the experience of the dominant
groups at the expense of gays’ and lesbians’, as well as their families’ uniquely scripted
narratives. It is the responsibility of feminist researchers to bring these stories into the
realm of dominant discourse.
Research Objectives and Questions

The primary purpose of this research was to allow parents who are accepting and
affirrning concerning their sons’ gay identities to story their experiences of coming out as
parents of gay children and to investigate the ecosystemic influences on their
experiences. The researcher used an explorative approach to gather data regarding the
parents' subjective experiences with the coming out process for the purpose of gaining
understanding of this unique experience and generating hypothesis for future research
(Marshall & Rossman, 1995). This was accomplished through the use of semi-structured
interviews that were guided by specific research questions. These interviews included
the completion of ecomaps by the participants for the purpose of strengthening the

research process through triangulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Additionally, a

34

narrative method was used. This method was loosely guided by a set of interview
questions that were used to elicit parents’ stories about their own coming out process
related to having a gay son. An interpretive mode of inquiry was used to construe
meaning of the parents' experience, both individually and across cases.

The specific research questions explored in this study were as follows:

1. How do parents define themselves as accepting and supporting of their

sons ’ gay identities?

2. How do parents describe their relationships with their gay sons prior to

them coming out, during the coming out process, and at the present time?

3. What are the reflections of parents as they story their own coming out

processes and the acquisition of their identities as "parents of gay sons? ”

4. How do parents describe the impact of their ecosystemic environments on

their ability to be accepting and aflirming toward their sons ’ gay
identities? Further, how do the parents describe their impact as accepting
parents on these systems?

The data has been utilized in two ways. First, the data was used for the purpose
of beginning the development of grounded theory in the area of gay and lesbian family
identity development. Second, information obtained has helped to generate further
hypotheses that may be used in future research to build upon the present study and
develop causal explanations. It is anticipated that continued research in this area will
lead to the identification of causal pathways and will contribute to the construction of
clinical models aimed at promoting the healthy integration of a member’s gay or lesbian

identity into the identity of the family as a whole.

35

Population and Sample

The population for this study was individual parents who are accepting and
supportive regarding their adult sons’ gay identities. A purposive (Gerhart et al., 2001)
sample was used in this study. The goal of this research was to have a sample that
yielded rich information rather than one that was generated randomly (Fetterman, 1989).
In qualitative research the goal is to gain increased understanding of certain phenomenon
and characteristics of the participants (Gerhart et al., 2001.) The specific purpose was to
keep within the goals of the research questions by gaining a sample of parents who
defined themselves as being accepting of their sons’ gay identities (N ewfield, Sells,
Smith, Newfield, & Newfield, 1996). Before participating in the study, the parents were
asked to respond to a written question, “What is your level of acceptance of your son’s
gay identity?” They were asked to circle one of the following responses: “Very
Accepting”, “Moderately Accepting” or “Somewhat Accepting.” All of the parents in
this study responded as being “Very Accepting.” Additionally, the sons’ of the parents in
this study were mailed the same question with regard to their perception of their parents’
acceptance levels. All of the sons perceived their parents as being “Very Accepting” as
well.

Sample Size

The primary goal in qualitative research is not necessarily to obtain a large,
random sample as in a quantitative study. In fact, a mandate for specific sample size does
not exist within the qualitative literature. The more important concern is that the data are
complete and saturated (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). It was initially anticipated that this

study would include twenty parents who identified themselves as either “very accepting”

36

or “moderately accepting” of their sons’ gay identities. The participants were contacted
as demographic information was returned via mail. Twenty-three demographic forms
were returned indicating an interest in participating in the project. There were five
potential participants who were contacted but were not able to participate because of
scheduling conflicts. Four of the potential participants were not contacted because
saturation of data was becoming evident after approximately ten interviews. After
fourteen interviews had been completed, the researcher determined that the data had
become saturated and the data collection process was complete at that point.
Sample Acquisition and Site

Because the nature of this topic may still be considered sensitive, the recruitment
of parents included an initial contact with the leader of a local support group, Parents and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-F LAG) to discuss means of approaching parents about
participation in the project. Contact with such an individual is often a helpful way to gain
entryway to a particular culture (F etterman, 1989). This leader was able to identify
several parents she believed would be willing to participate and agreed to mail them a
letter from the researcher informing them of the nature of the project and inviting them to
participate. If they were willing to participate, they were asked to send back a form with
basic demographic information and were also asked to indicate their level of acceptance.
All potential participants were thanked for taking the time to fill out the initial forms but
were informed that they might not be contacted for the actual study. The decision to
interview parents who were accepting rather than those who were rejecting of their
children’s gay sexual identity mitigated some of the difficulty in finding willing

participants.

37

Data Collection
Interview Process

Parents were initially contacted by telephone and were given a basic overview of
the project and the interview process. They were informed that the purpose of the
interview was to do an in-depth examination of their feelings and experiences related to
being the parent of a gay child, examine the systemic influences that inform their .
narratives of how they came to be accepting of their sons’ gay identities, and to explore
their own definitions of what it means to be accepting and supportive of their sons’ gay
identities. Prior to starting the face- to-face interviews, the parties were asked to sign a
consent form that gave written objectives of the project and descriptions of the interview
process. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions about the interview process
and to seek clarification about any aspect of the project in an attempt to avoid any
psychological pressure in terms of their participation (Boss, Dahl, & Kaplan, 1996).

If parents of the same child were interviewed, each was interviewed separately so
that the story of one spouse would not be influenced by the other. The participants were
all interviewed in their homes because they indicated that this would be most comfortable
and convenient for them. The first portion of the interview included some specific
interview questions related to the parents’ definitions of what they felt qualified them as
accepting parents. The parents were also asked to describe their relationships with their
children prior to the coming out process, during the coming out process and at the present
time. Finally, the parents were asked to tell the story of their children’s coming out,
including descriptions of how they learned that their sons were gay, their reactions, and

their subsequent processes of developing their own identities as “parents of gay sons.”

38

This portion of the interview relied heavily on the parents’ constructions of their personal
narratives with the researcher guiding the process and utilizing some prompts and open-
ended questions related to the coming out process. The narratives were tape recorded for
later transcription and data analysis.

In an attempt to triangulate the data, the researcher asked the participants to
complete ecomaps representing the primary systems in which the parents were
embedded. These were to include extended family networks, friendship networks,
culture, religion, work, and recreation. This portion of the interview was also semi-
structured, with the researcher explaining the process involved in the completion of these
tools, and using minor questions and prompts if necessary to facilitate inclusion of
relevant information. The participants were given a broad overview of what they should
try to address in terms of relevant systems. The majority of the participants completed
this exercise with little prompting. The researcher drew the circles representing the
systems the parents mentioned and recorded the data that was relevant to each system.
The parents were also asked to consider what it was about the various systemic
environments that facilitated their ability to be accepting and supportive concerning their
sons’ gay identities.

Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to identify patterns and themes that became evident
in the narratives and ecomaps of the participants concerning their acceptance of their
sons’ gay identities. In qualitative research, data analysis is a continual process that
starts during the collection procedure itself and pervades the entire collection process

even prior to the commencement of formal coding procedures (Miles & Huberrnan,

39

1994.)
better
(Althe-
initial
promi
behai

these

Hui

0Oil

is

lie:

&I

desi

199.

00:15

1994.) Ethnographic content analysis specifically employs a reflexive movement
between concept development, data collection, coding, analysis and interpretation
(Altheide, 1987). To this end, the researcher engaged in data analysis starting with the
initial interviewing process. The researcher took field notes to assist in recognizing
prominent characteristics of the interviews, and to record non-verbal gestures and
behavior that rrright be lost during the transcription process. At the end of each interview,
these notes were utilized in the completion of contact summary sheets. The contact
summary sheets were used to note emerging patterns in the interviews and in the
development of early coding constructs. They were also used to generate early
hypotheses to be explored in subsequent interviews.

The data from the tape-recorded interviews was transcribed verbatim and
analyzed using grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990.) This methodology consists of using a
constant comparative approach to identify concepts and develop categories that provide a
structured fiamework for organizing the data. This method of analysis seeks to maintain
a systematic form of analysis. However, it does not imply rigidity. Rather it encourages
flexibility. The researcher utilized both descriptive and pattern coding techniques (Miles
& Huberman, 1994.)

Coding Process

Codes are defined as “tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the
descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study” (Miles & Huberman,
1994. p. 56). Coding helps to organize and synthesize data while at the same time

construing meaning. Coding is a useful mechanism for increasing the efficiency of data

40

retrieval and helping to expedite analysis. The coding process started with broad
concepts and initial codes that were conceptualized throughout the interview process.
Data was originally coded according to five broad classes that were directly related to
each of the five research questions. Two classes subsequently were collapsed into one
because the research questions were found to be similar and data related to the questions
appeared to be redundant.

During the initial coding process, the researcher read the verbatim transcripts
several times looking for data that pertained to the independently developed list of class
categories. Data was coded as “chunks” using four different colored highlight markers to
assign data to different classes. The data from each class was then copied to four
separate computer files that were labeled by class and printed.

Next, the process of open coding commenced, utilizing a line-by-line descriptive
approach to examine the data in each of the four classes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Additionally, concepts emerging fi'om the ecomaps and narratives were coded similarly
and comparisons were made between the two in order to generate a comprehensive and
unduplicated list of categories. Predetermined categories and variables initially guided
the coding process. However, additional categories were allowed to emerge throughout
the study (Altheide, 1987).

Following the completion of open coding, some categories were collapsed. After
the data was categorized and coded, it was printed under the appropriate heading. These
code categories were used for the second stage of coding which was used to identify
patterns contributing to the themes that emerged under each code. Cross-case patterns

were identified and assembled as informal data displays for the purpose of keeping the

41

data organized. A computer file was created for each individual theme. The final coding
frame was assembled as a chart to assist with the narrative discussion of the result and to

allow the researcher to present the data in a comprehensive manner. Table 1 represents

the final coding frame and emergent themes from each code.

42

 

Table 1

 

 

 

Final Coding Frame
Class Code Theme
‘ Parents’ Definitions of Acceptance Treatment Verbal Support
Inclusion in Family Events
Acceptance of Significant Others
Non-disparate Distinction
Unconditional Love
Comfort Level Absence of Desire to Change Sons’ Gay

Identity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents’ Relationships with Sons Recollection of Sons Feminine Adjective
Prior to Coming Out Positive Qualities
Closeness of Parent/Child Relationship
Ease of Raising Child
Relationship During Contact and Connectedness
Coming Out Process Low Levels Of Strain
Present Relationship Growth
Parents’ Stories of Their Coming Prior Awareness Lack of Dating
Out Processes Gender Qualities
Specific Incidents
How and When Disclosure was Made
Disclosure Reaction
Communication
Coping Strategies Information Gathering
P-F LAG
Transcending Stereotypes
Fear of Negative Repercussions for Sons
Difficult Aspects Regret in Not Being Supportive Earlier
Coming Out to Others
Gay Culture Meeting/Interacting with Gays and Lesbians
Activism
Present Experience Non—issue

 

 

 

43

 

Table 1(Cont.)

 

 

 

Final Coding Frame
Class Code Theme
Ecosystemic Influences on Nude” Family Supportive

Acceptance

Balanced Autonomy/Connectedness

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extended Family Positive Relationships
Religion T ding B' ”E gma
Promoting Change
Occupations Professional Training
Outside of the Experience
Home
Social/Recreation Comfort and Acceptance from Friends
I act of Societal . .
Hrbpmophobia Low Level of Internalrzed Homophobia

 

 

 

T mstworthiness

Qualitative research differs from quantitative research with regard to issues of
reliability and validity (in qualitative scholarship, termed “trustworthiness”). The goal of
qualitative research is to seek “in-depth meanings, understanding, and quality attributes
of phenomena studies (Gerhart, Ratliff & Randall, 2001) rather than simply quantifying
data. Several methods can be used to increase trustworthiness in qualitative studies.
These include participant verification and feedback, multiple coding, quoting, and
triangulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This study utilized two different tools for the
collection of data, aimed at increasing the trustworthiness of the information obtained.
These tools allowed the researcher to return to the prevailing themes several times during
the interview and thereby thickening the parents’ descriptions of their experiences.

The trustworthiness of reported results is enhanced to the extent that scholars can
ascertain that the findings are not distorted by the personal qualities of the researcher
(Silverman, 1998). Therefore, quotes from the participants often have been used in an
effort to represent their own words rather than relying solely on the researcher’s
summaries and interpretations. Finally, in order to increase the validity of the parents’
self-described acceptance, the researcher verified the level of acceptance expressed by the
parents with the sons’ own perceptions of their parents’ acceptance.

Ethical Considerations

Researchers have an ethical responsibility to critically examine their effect as

researchers on the process (Reay, 1996). Unless they are aware of how their perspectives

and value systems are operationalized during interviews or participant observations,

45

researchers may bring these personal perspectives to bear powerfully on the participants
stories (Boss, Dahl, & Kaplan, 1996). Reflexivity relates to the investigator’s critical
examination of his or her effect on the research process. Objectivity can be addressed by
making predispositions explicit so that the reader can appropriately adjust proffered
interpretations from the researcher (Guba, 1990). Reflexivity is helpful in deconstructing
some of the assumptions that are taken for granted by the participants and the investigator
and by acknowledging the influence on data collection (Silverman, 1998).

Relationality addresses power and trust in relationships among investigators and
participants and contributes to standards of quality in qualitative research as well as
standards for ethics (Lincoln, 1995). Notions of honesty and authenticity are implicit in
the concept of relationality. Prior to beginning the interview process, the investigator had
to make a decision about whether to disclose to the participants that she had been in a
committed lesbian relationship for several years prior to this research project and had
experienced a coming out process in relation to her family of origin. (This fact was also
important to reflexivity, since the investigator would need to attend to her preconceived
ideas about the parent-child relationship in regards to the coming out process.) The
investigator was explicit about her belief that the coming out process was important in the
quest for honest self-representation and decided it would be inauthentic to hide that she
had been in a lesbian relationship and had herself experienced a coming out process.
Also, the investigator’s former partner had been extremely active in the gay community
for several years and the participants might recognize the investigator’s last name (which
had been hyphenated with her former partner’s last name) and connect it with her partner.

It was anticipated that some of the participants might even have had interactions with her

46

former partner and might inquire as to the relationship. The investigator decided that it
would be prudent to be honest up front about this fact with the participants.

The decision about what to tell the participants in this regard was somewhat
complicated by the fact that the investigator did not presently identify as lesbian. Her
own process made her aware that she would be open to the possibility that she could be
attracted to either women or men. Her relationship was her single lesbian experience and
she had experienced relationships with men before and after her lesbian relationship.
While it was not necessary to share the details of her own self-narrative concerning her
sexuality, this issue did have some relevance in terms of reflexivity. It was clear that a
majority of the participants operated under the assumption that being gay or lesbian is not
a choice. The investigator believes that is true for some people but not for others.

The investigator decided to simply inform the participants that she had been in a
seven-year committed lesbian relationship that had ended in the previous year and that
she had gone through a coming out process with her own family and they had also come
to a place of acceptance. She informed them that her own disclosure was related to a
desire to maintain integrity in the interview process but that she was interested in hearing

their stories and did not believe it would be appropriate to share aspects of her own story

in this context.

47

Chapter 4

FINDINGS

Overview

The primary purpose of this project was to allow parents who are
accepting and supportive of their sons’ gay sexual identities to story their experiences in a
manner that enabled them to explore their own coming out process as the parents of a gay
sons and to appreciate the systemic influences on that process. While the clear purpose
of this study is to allow the parents to create their own narratives and make sense of their
processes in their own ways, there is an undeniable interaction that occurs between the
researcher and the participant. One way that this becomes relevant over the course of data
collection relates to the amount of fieedom the researcher allows the participant in terms
of responding to interview questions. The amount of freedom afforded to the participants
by the researcher in terms elaboration in their answers is often connected with the level of
control that the researcher desires over the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

The decision to keep data tight or loose is something that must be resolved by
the researcher prior to beginning the interview process. There are benefits and
consequences to each approach. When the researcher holds to a very structured interview
process and keeps a tight reign on the participants’ answers, the data often remains more
manageable during the analysis. The downside is that often much of the richness of the
participants’ experiences is lost. Conversely, when the researcher decides to conduct a

less structured interview, he or she may obtain data that is far richer and leads to

48

dditional insight throughout the process. The negative side of this is that some focus

nay be lost as participants get tangential in their answers and the data can become

overwhelming and more difficult to manage (Meloy, 1994).
This dilemma was resolved by attempting to develop a balanced and flexible
approach. A semi-structured interview that was derived fiom the research questions and

conceptual map was used as means to elicit information from the participants. There was

a clear focus for the direction that was intended for the interviews. However, a fair

.. “.1... ..‘.I_
I

amount of elaboration was permitted on each question. Broad, open-ended questions

2.
were used and the researcher emphasized to the participants that they should answer the
questions in ways that were relevant to them and allowed them to create their own
meanings. Prompts were used to address certain areas of inquiry. If the participant did
not address those areas, more specific questions were asked. Often, the researcher was
not required to use these prompts because the participant addressed these areas of interest
in answering the general question. After the first few interviews, the researcher noticed
that she was commonly saying “I know you already answered this, but. . .” in an attempt
to hold specifically to the interview questions. When repetitive data began to occur, the
researcher leamed to refrain from using prompts where it was not necessary.

This chapter will describe the research participants in terms of demographic data
and set forth the salient themes of the interviews. As discussed in the previous chapter,
interview questions were developed in direct relation to the research questions. Four
classifications in turn were derived from the interviews with the participants and will be

addressed sequentially in this chapter. For each class, a brief description follows and

 

then coded material is presented in terms of the dominant themes that resulted within

49

each code. For each theme, quotes from the participants are used to illustrate the types of
responses that contributed to the development of that theme. Pseudonyms are used in
place of the participant’s actual names to preserve the confidentiality of their stories.
Demographics
The sample used for this study included fourteen parents who live in Grand
Rapids and the surrounding areas. Table 2 represents the demographic information
relevant to this project. In this sample, eight of the participants were female (57%) and l'

six (43%) were male and included four married couples. All of the participants were

M‘.

Caucasian and all had some college background, including two with Associate degrees
(14%), ten with Bachelor’s Degrees (72%) and two with Graduate Degrees (Ph.D and
J.D.). They ranged in age fiom fifty-five years to seventy-five years old, with the
average age being sixty-four years old. Their sons ranged in age from thirty-years to
fifty-one years old with the average age being thirty-eight years old. The average length
of time that had elapsed since initial disclosure was thirteen years. The participants

ranged from middle to upper-middle class in socioeconomic status.

50

Name

Charles

Susan
Bob
Helen
Harris
Amelia
Greg
Winnie
Joe
Caroline
Alex
Natalie
Kate

Theresa

Table 2

Demographic Information

Gender Age Occupation

M

F

66

65

68

67

66

65

66

63

55

55

62

61

63

74

Attorney

Choir Director
Self-Employed Business
Homemaker

Retired Teacher
Homemaker

Bank Director

Retired School Secretary
Insurance Claims Supervisor
Registered Nurse
Retired Professor
Teacher

Public Health Nurse

Art Museum Shop Manager

51

Years Since

Son Came
Qu_t

13 years
13 years
23 years
23 years
6 years
6 years
8 years
8 years
15 years
15 years
11 years
11 years
6 years

23 years

Son’s age

34

34

42

42

38

38

44

44

34

34

30

30

36

51

-. “1
I

 

Parental Definitions of Acceptance
The parents’ acceptance of their sons’ gay identities as a broad theme was
integrated throughout all of the classes of data in this project. However, this class
specifically focused on definitions from the parents’ perspectives of what it meant to be
accepting of their sons’ gay identities. A central tenet of the narrative approach is that
this approach privileges the individual meanings that people place on their experiences

(White & Epston, 1990). The first research question is: How do parents define

themselves as accepting and supporting of their children ’s gay or lesbian identities?

The purpose of this question was to explore the meanings that parents ascribed to
themselves as “accepting and supportive parents of gay sons.” The purpose of this
question or project as a whole was not to find a universal definition or set of requirements
that must be met in order to qualify as an accepting and supportive parent, but rather to
have parents reflect on their own thoughts and behaviors that contribute to their
acceptance of their son’s gay identities. In the original coding scheme, this class had four
primary codes. However, two of the codes were collapsed and moved to another class of
data, Parents Coming Out Stories, during final coding because they appeared more
relevant to that class. The two codes that remained in this class are Treatment and
Comfort Level.

Code: Treatment

Generally, many of the parents’ self-descriptions of acceptance were focused on
general treatment of their sons. The overriding desire for most of the parents has been to
demonstrate to their sons that they were available to them and that their gay identities

would not be a reason for disruption in the parent-child relationship. The parents in this

52

 

project do not engage in punitive behavior towards their sons but instead demonstrate
behavior that shows their sons that they are accepting of them as gay men. Within the
Treatment Code, five primary themes emerged:

1) Verbal Support;

2) Inclusion in Family Events

3) Acceptance of Significant Others

4) Non-disparate Distinctions

5) Unconditional Love

Theme: Verbal Support

Many of the parents identified that they often exercised direct verbal statements of
support to their sons with regard to their gay identities. One father, Greg, states, “How
am I supportive? I guess by letting him know that I accept him being gay and by
demonstrating that through my words and actions.” Another parent, Joe, talked about
how important it is to make direct statements concerning support specifically for the fact
that his son is gay. He states, “He knows I’m supportive because I tell him that I am. It
goes beyond whether I am just supportive of him in general as a person. He knows that I
am supportive specifically of him being gay and that he can always talk to me about
anything concerning him being gay because I tell him directly.”

Several parents referenced conversations that they have had with their sons
wherein their sons had mentioned different struggles related to identity management.
Rather than viewing their sons’ obstacles as evidence that they should try to change their
gay identities or hide the fact that they are gay, these parents were able to express

continued support for their sons’ coming out processes. They did not capitalize on those

53

 

incidences as opportunities to illustrate to their sons the negative implications of being
gay. One mother, Kate, stated, “Well, I have always tried to be available to him and by
letting him know that I am supportive of him being gay and of his decisions to come out.”
Another mother, Natalie and her husband, Alex, directly supported their gay son’s
decision to come out to their younger son, who was thirteen at the time. They
individually stated their support not only for his gay identity but also for his ability to talk
to his younger brother about this issue in an appropriate way. A majority of the parents
expressed pride for their sons and their ability to integrate their gay identities into their
lives. Harris expresses that he is supportive “by verbally telling him that I’m proud of
him.” Charles acknowledged that it was his son’s positive way of dealing with the issue
that helped him come to a more accepting place, “He was a positive example of grace
under the pressure in helping his dad understand this! He is incredibly bright and was
way ahead of me in the analysis of all of this. He wasn’t always willing to help me but
wanted me to come to acceptance on my own. When I finally did, I think I told him how
proud I was of the way he had handled himself.” Many other parents echoed these

expressions of pride and indicated that they had told their sons that they were proud of
them in relation to their gay identity at some point.

Theme: Inclusion in Family Events

It is an overwhelming fear by many gays and lesbians that once their families are

aware of their gay identities, they will suffer from various types of rejection (LaSalla,
2000.) Many gays and lesbians have reported varying types of rejecting behaviors by
loved ones that range from subtle comments of disapproval to overt exclusion of the gay

or lesbian individual in their lives. This exclusion may be related to specific events or

54

 

“ml

may be a total cut-off from the gay or lesbian individual where all contact ceases.
Within this sample, many of the parents identified the continued inclusion of their
sons in family gatherings as something that defined their acceptance. Two fathers
indicated that they continued to take trips with their sons for the purpose of continuing to
forge father/son bonds. In fact, these fathers identified these as times that they were able

to deepen their understanding of issues relating to their sons being gay. Susan and her

”7

husband Charles both talked about the fact that they wanted to make sure their son

ts" _ _'.' -
to

always knew he was welcome in their home and at any family event. Susan reflects, “I
know Todd was worried that we might not want him around as much after we found out,
but that has never been the case. It would be a huge loss if he weren’t at our family
events. In fact, we are taking a family vacation on a Disney cruise over Christmas, with
all of our children and grandchildren. We didn’t even know if that was something he’d
be interested in, but we still invited him and we are glad he wants to go.”

The parents often talked about holidays or special family events such as weddings
as being specific occasions where they made sure their sons knew they were not only
welcome to attend, but where their presence would be missed if they didn’t attend. Even
when the inclusion of the son may have made other people in attendance at the event
uncomfortable, the parents were more interested in including their child and found ways
to address or ignore other people’s discomfort about the presence of their gay son.
Theresa recalls, “I told him in the beginning, that not only would he always be welcome

at family events, but he’d better come!” She did not recall any resistance from extended

family or friends with regard to including her son in family events, but states, “He’s my

son and of course he would be invited, and if someone doesn’t like it, tough, that’s their

55

 

problem and they don’t have to come if they don’t want!”
Theme: Acceptance of Significant Others
Without exception, the definitions of acceptance from this group of parents

included support of their sons’ relationships with others including partners and gay
friends. Although this aspect of acceptance was a prompt, it was never necessary to use
this prompt with the parents whose sons were involved in committed partnerships. These
parents spontaneously addressed this in response to the original question without being
prompted. Helen stated, “I am very supportive of my son’s relationship with his
partner. . .People should have the right to share their lives with someone who makes them
happy. That’s what you want for your children. It is wonderful to see your son sharing a
committed, loving relationship with someone who makes him happy.” Harris talked
about the fact that he and his wife had made it a point to meet their son’s partner about
three weeks after he came out to them. He remembers, “When he came out to us, he told
us right away that he had a partner and that they had been involved for about a year. We
had them over for dinner with our other son and daughter-in-law. We wanted to show
him right away that we would be accepting of who he was and of his relationship. We
like his partner a lot and they make a great couple.” Many of the parents spoke of how
their sons’ partners were treated as “part of the family” or how they viewed the partners
as “son-in-laws.” Greg detailed that his son’s partner referred to him and his wife as
“Mom and Dad.”

Many parents made direct comments about their fondness for their sons’ partners.
Winnie’s “We just love T om, He and Brad are perfect for one another, a really good

balance. We treat them just like a married couple” and Theresa’s “I absolutely love Rich.

56

HA

 

He and Tim have been together for almost twenty years and they are a match made in
heaven” were indicative of the general feelings expressed by the parents whose sons were
involved in committed relationships. Helen was so fond of her son’s partner that she
stated, “I am so happy that my son found someone like Kurt. He is so wonderfully
talented, intelligent and kind. He also is completely gorgeous! If he wasn’t gay, I think I

would want to marry him myself!” Harris observed that while he has a positive

_..y_. ‘41

relationship with his own son, it is his son’s partner with whom he shares more personal

‘i‘..-
l

interests and he is able to engage in those interests with him.

Recognition of their sons’ couple relationships was very strong throughout this
sample of parents. There were numerous expressions of acknowledgment for these
relationships including cards and gifts to recognize the partners’ birthdays and the
couples’ anniversaries. Also, as the sons’ inclusion in family events was a prominent
theme, so was the inclusion of their partners. The researcher also observed pictures of
the parents’ gay sons and their partners prominently displayed at several of the homes
where the interviews were conducted, which further evidences their acceptance of their
sons’ partners. Bob talked about the fact that his son and his partner had a child through
the use of a surrogate mother and that he proudly displays pictures of his son’s family at
his office and often chooses to explain the situation to people. He also stated, “My wallet
is filled with pictures of the three of them, and like most other proud grandpas, I show

9,
!

them off to anyone that will look at them

There were also several parents who had sons who were not presently involved in
committed relationships. However, these parents indicated they would be supportive of

their sons’ partners. Susan shared that her son had previously been in a committed

57

 

relationship for a few years but that his partner, Andy, had a brain aneurysm and
eventually Andy’s family wanted to move him home so they could care for him. She
elaborated, “They weren’t really accepting of Andy being gay, so they didn’t want Todd
around.” She went on to lament the loss of Andy in their family and talked about how
she and her husband had been supportive of Todd’s relationship with Andy and that she

hoped that her son would again find someone special with whom he could share his life.

Parents who had sons who were not involved in committed relationships indicated

that this was something they desired for them. When asked about how she would
respond to her son starting a same-sex relationship Kate responded, “It’s something I
would like to happen. It hasn’t really come up because he hasn’t had a partner. He’s
dated a few people, but not someone who he’s been involved with enough to become part
of the family. That is something that I actually would like for him to experience and for
me to know that he has a committed relationship and someone to share his life with on a
more permanent basis.” Joe expressed his desire for his son to find someone that he
could spend his life with and that he hoped he would have some kind of commitment
ceremony. His wife, Caroline addressed this as well and stated, “I would be in total
support if Doug were in a committed relationship. I want that for him. Up to this point
he hasn’t had any long-term relationships. You could say I’m the typical mother who is

looking forward to planning a big wedding. I have had the chapel at Fountain Street
Church booked for years just waiting for the chance!”

Theme: Non—Disparate Treatment

Perhaps the most resounding theme around the parents’ definitions of themselves

as accepting of their sons’ gay identities was their observation that they did not treat their

58

-21}

‘ror

 

sons any differently than they treated their heterosexual children. They also talked about
not treating them any differently than if they had been heterosexual. Over and over, the
parents’ statements spoke to the fact that their feelings and actions towards their sons had
not changed because they were gay. Susan’s comment, “I guess for me, I don’t treat him
any differently. Him being gay doesn’t mean that I should think of him as less of a
person or a son, and I don’t” was typical of the feelings expressed by many of the
parents. Similarly, Harris states, “The main thing is that I don’t treat him any differently
than I did prior to knowing about this.” Amelia also offered, “I think the best way
parents can be accepting and supportive is to just treat their children the same way they
treat their other children who aren’t gay. He is still the same person. This is just
something different about him that you didn’t know before.”

While all of the parents expressed in one way or another that they treated their
sons in the same way that they would if they were straight, many of the parents
acknowledged the fact that simply by virtue of being gay, their sons would experience
life differently than if they were straight. They were able to appreciate the unique
implications that being gay placed upon their sons’ lives. However, they maintained that
their feelings and treatment of their sons were not altered by the fact that they were gay.
Winnie elaborated on this idea when she said, “An accepting parent does not feel any
differently about that child than any of their other children. Everything would be the
same. You wouldn’t distinguish that child from any other child. He may have other
things to deal with because he is gay, so in that way it is different, but he is not any

different and the way I treat about him is not any different.”

59

 

Theme: Unconditional Love

Originally this theme was included within the non-disparate treatment theme,
however it was separated during the final analysis because it seemed to be a unique
phenomenon that related solely to the fact that their sons’ coming out did nothing to
engender negative feelings towards them by the parents. This was true of both fathers
and mothers. However, fathers often spoke in general terms of affection for their sons
whereas the majority of the mothers spoke specifically about a boundless love they had
for their sons. In response to the question concerning parental definitions of acceptance,
many of the mothers immediately spoke of their love for their son. Theresa stated, “From
the beginning, I just felt that he is my son and I will always love him. I always take him
for what he is and where he is at.” These mothers could not imagine that anything could
change their love for their sons and could not understand how parents could capriciously
turn their backs on their children over something as insignificant as sexual orientation.
Many of the mother’s spoke specifically of “unconditional love.” Amelia’s “He’s my
son. I love him. What else would I do?” was a sentiment that was repeated by several
mothers and fathers. Helen succinctly captured this premise with her response, “The
number one thing is just pure unconditional love. You just love your children for who
they are. No matter what. Period. There is no ‘not being there’ for them.”

Code: Comfort Level
A second code in the Parental Definitions of Acceptance relates to the level of
comfort the parents describe with regards to their sons being gay. Literature concerning
gays and lesbians suggests that final acceptance of one’s gay or lesbian identity occurs

when the gay of lesbian person would not choose to change their identity even if they

60

fi-

Wilh-

were given the opportunity (Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1982, Troiden, 1988). Similarly, it is
hypothesized that parents who have accepted their own identities as the parents of gay
sons would not desire to change their sons’ gay identities. Parents’ comfort levels were
explored in terms of their acceptance of their sons’ gay identities and their general

comfort level with their own identities as parents of gay sons. The primary theme that

"l

emerged was Absence of Desire to Change Sons’ Gay Identities.

' 2“

Theme: Absence of Desire to Change Sons ' Gay Identities

Originally, there was an attempt to classify the parents’ acceptance of their own
identities as parents of gay children separately from their desire to change their sons’
identities to heterosexual. Upon reviewing the transcripts, however, these two concepts
were so closely intertwined that they fall under the same general theme. Lack of desire to
change their sons’ gay identities was very indicative of the parents own comfort level. In
response to the question, “Would you change your son’s gay identity to heterosexual if

you could?” none of the parents in this sample indicated any desire to do this, However,

they approached the question in different ways.
One parent, Bob, talked in the most general terms about his comfort level, “Well,

there’s nothing about him being gay that bothers me in the least bit at this point.” Many
of the parents related their comfort level with their sons’ gay identities to the fact that
their sons’ were comfortable with it themselves. Kate gave a long pause before
answering, “That’s a hard question to answer from the standpoint that if Scott wanted to
change then I guess I would want what he wants for him. But I wouldn’t change him for
me. As long as he’s okay with it, I’m okay with it. And, I think he is. So, no, I wouldn’t

change him.” Greg’s answer was similar, “I wouldn’t do it for me or us, but if Brad

61

 

wanted to, then maybe. I want him to be happy with who he is. I think Brad is very
happy with who he is and in his relationship with Tom, so I don’t think there is anything
to change.” Some of the parents were quite passionate about their belief that there would
be much audacity on the part of parents who thought they should be entitled to dictate
their children’s identities. Susan could not fathom the idea that people would waste their
time thinking about changing their gay children and stated, “No. He’s a good person and
happy with who he is. Why would you ever want to change that?” Winnie simply said,
“No, I would not change him. He’s happy and it’s who he is.”

Another group of parents stated that they would not change their sons at this
point, but talked about the struggle that their sons’ endured in relation to being gay and
their sorrow about that. Amelia states, “Quite honestly, this isn’t something you would
wish for one of your children. This doesn’t have anything to do with me or how I feel
about it. I just think there was quite a bit of struggle for Peter for many years. I think it
was a very lonely place for him to be and for him to worry about having to hide such a
basic part of himself or to worry about being rejected. It makes me sad to think about all
of those years that he went through that, so, of course, if I could have taken all of that
away for him, I probably would have. But I also think he has come to terms with this
aspect of himself and I think he is happy with who he is and very happy with Ric so no,
at this point, I wouldn’t change him.” Amelia’s husband, Harris also recalled the struggle
their son had gone through and commented, “No, I wouldn’t change Peter, but I would
make it so others would not treat gays so badly or that society in general would be more

accepting. To me, I wouldn’t have any interest in changing that quality about him

anymore than, say, his eye or hair color.” Theresa also recalled that her son had endured

62

some difficulty trying to come to terms with being gay. She answered, “No, I would not
change him. Well, when I look at what he went through, I might have back then. I
wouldn’t change him, but I would change the way he was treated. But, he is who he is.
And I think he and Rich were made for each other and they are very happy, so I can’t
imagine that he should have been with anyone else.”

Other parents talked about their sons’ gay identities being a part of what makes
their sons special. Helen commented, “No, definitely not. I’m afiaid that if I changed
Chris’ gay identity I would change him in general. I think some of the things in him that I
love and value are partially true because he is gay.” Natalie added a humorous touch to
her response, “Heavens no, I wouldn’t change him. He might not be the same person
anymore. He has the most marvelous taste and a wonderful sense of art and design. My
goodness, who would I go shopping with?”

Finally, two of the parents who are married to one another and are both heavily
involved in activism talked specifically about the fact that changing their son’s gay
identity would have a large impact on their own identities. Carol, probably the most
activist parent in the sample, had been surprised in the beginning by her son’s
announcement that he was gay. While she had never reacted negatively towards him she
admitted, “ Not now, I wouldn’t change him. If he would have wanted to in the
beginning, I probably would have, but he has accepted it and that is part of who he is. It
is also so much a part of who I am.” Her husband, Joe, gave a resounding, “Oh no! Not
to be selfish, but the fact that he is gay has allowed us to meet so many wonderful people,
that had he not been gay, we probably wouldn’t have met and we might not have gotten

involved the way we have and that would have been a huge loss. Also, he’s fine with it

63

“fl

and we are too.”

Parents’ Relationships with Their Sons

Generally, parents who have had positive relationships with their children will
wish to continue to share close relationships with these children. The overall data was
fairly consistent with this. The parents described their feelings, observations and thoughts
about their sons across time and described aspects of their parent-child relationship in
response to the research question: How do parents describe their relationships with their
gay sons prior to them coming out, during the coming out process, and at the present
time?

The data was coded to reflect the parent-child relationship across the different
points in time as specified in the research question. The final codes were Recollections of
Sons Prior to Coming Out, Relationship During the Coming Out Process, and Present
Relationship.

Code: Recollection of Sons Prior to Coming Out

This code revealed that a majority of the parents had very positive relationships
with their sons during their sons’ childhood and adolescent periods. For the most part,
they described their sons in positive terms. Within their narrative descriptions of their
sons and their relationships with their sons, four themes emerged:

l) Feminine Adjectives
2) Other Positive Qualities
3) Closeness of Parent-Child Relationship

4) Ease of Raising Child.

Theme: Feminine Adjectives

When asked to recollect characteristics that they remembered in their sons as
children, a majority of the parents described their sons with terms that are traditionally
associated with feminine qualities. Bill’s first response to the question asking him to
think back to specific memories of his son as a child included, “Cluis was a very
sensitive and artistic person.” Nine of the fourteen parents used the word “sensitive” at
some point during their discussions of their memories of their sons as children. Caroline
elaborated, “Doug was so sensitive and caring, and I am not quite sure where that came
from because I wouldn’t describe either Joe or I as being overly sensitive. But Doug
would always send us these really mushy flowery cards for birthdays or holidays. He
would spend hours searching for just the right sentiment!” Many of the parents talked
about how their sons’ feelings could easily be hurt or how they were very sensitive to
others feelings. Helen described her son as being “very sweet and caring and always very
in tune to how I was feeling. He always wanted to please me.”

Along with sensitivity, a moderate number of the parents described their sons as
“nurturing” and gave examples of nurturing behavior exhibited by their sons. Kate
remembers her son’s sensitivity as a child as being a defining characteristic of him. She
stated, “He was never rough or tough and always a very sensitive child. He was very
nurturing and a caretaker. He especially loved animals and was always kind to animals.
He was the type of kid who would go out into the woods but would never take a gun.
He’d take a camera instead. If he ever came across an injured creature, he would do all
he could to nurse it back to health.” Theresa also talked about her son’s fondness for and

kindness towards animals. “He just could not stand to see an animal suffer. He would cry

65

 

for what seemed like forever if he saw an animal on the side of the road that was hurt or
had been killed.”

The majority of the parents used more than one traditionally feminine adjective to
describe their sons. While references to sensitivity or nurturing were used by nearly
every parent, the other adjective that came up with a fair amount of fi'equency was
“quiet”. This term was used by six parents to describe their sons. Joe described his son

using a string of adjectives, “He was very conforming, a hard worker, intelligent, very

- a tits—Am .~ I

caring and mostly, very, very quiet.” ;
While a few parents expressed that they had some concern about their sons’
feminine behavior when they were children, most of the parents did not find it
problematic. Theresa’s quote summed up the expressions of many of the parents: “He
wasn’t your typical rough and tough boy, but he had such a nice manner, and I just
valued him for who he was. I wasn’t tying to make him fit into some typical ‘boy’
package.”
Theme: Other Positive Qualities
All of the parents in this sample named several positive qualities (besides
sensitive and nurturing) that they remembered about their sons during the time of
childhood and adolescence. A moderate number of the parents described their children as
having above average intelligence and being successful academically. Susan talked about
noticing that her son was very bright from an early age. She cited several examples of his
intelligence, “He taught himself to read at a young age. . .I remember when personal
computers first came out he was fascinated by them. He figured out how to use them on

his own and became very proficient that way. He was also a National Merit Scholar. He

66

got 1510 on his SAT.”

Several parents described their sons as being industrious and goal oriented.
Harris and Amelia’s son, Peter, who now owns a landscaping business, started
volunteering at a local greenhouse when he was about twelve or thirteen because he loved
plants and flowers and just wanted to be around them. He used to spend hours designing

landscaping plans because he knew he wanted to work in that capacity as an adult.

. .
‘

Eventually, the owner of the greenhouse recognized what a hard worker he was and how
serious he took his job and hired him on payroll. He continued to work there until he
graduated from high school. He has kept that connection and gets much of the business
that is referred to him through that source. Another father, Greg described a similar
scenario. His son had been interested in radio broadcasting at an early age and when he
was fourteen he started working at a local station and he is now involved in broadcasting
as his vocation. Kate said, simply, “Scott was very efficient. He set goals for himself
and he completed them. He was a self-starter. He didn’t waste time, he just got it done.”

Two of the parents talked about their sons in terms of talent and about how their
sons had excelled in these areas. Theresa remembered that her son had received first
prize in a talent contest at school playing the cello. He had also been in the junior
symphony orchestra for the Grand Rapids Symphony and held first chair throughout.
Natalie talked about her son’s interest in dancing, music and theatre and how he had been
“discovered” by a local director when he was fairly young. He had gone on to star in
numerous plays and musicals in community theatre.

Many of the parents used generally positive terms to describe their sons socially.

Theresa described her son as “a very positive person with a great outlook.” She went on

67

to say “He has always had the best sense of humor and he could always make me laugh.
He still can.” Several other parents mentioned that their sons had good senses of humor.
Harris remembered, “Peter was quiet, but he also had a very well developed sense of
humor. He was a pretty funny guy and we have always been able to joke around.”
Winnie described that her son as very popular and social. He had a lot of fiiends in
school. Her husband, Greg remembered that their son was always “very funny and the
life of the party” at any social gathering.

References to their children’s tendency towards neatness were also common.
Five parents indicated this quality was something they remembered and appreciated
about their sons. Caroline detailed this more than the other parents. She stated, “Doug
was always very organized. I never had to pick up after him and he actually helped me
around the house a lot without me even having to ask him. He was fascinated with
vacuum cleaners. Messiness really bothered him a lot and still does. I guess you could
say he is a total neat freak!”
Theme: Closeness of Parent-Child Relationship

Most of the parents indicated indirectly that they had good relationships with their
sons during the boys’ childhoods. Some of the parents spoke directly about the positive
relationships they had with their sons. Kate, Theresa, and Helen all stated specifically,
“We were very close.” Bob talked about the fact that he and his son spent a lot of time
together when his son was a child. He stated, “I always found my time with Chris to be
very pleasurable. We probably enjoyed the time together more than the actual activities
we were doing. It was a nice, close relationship.”

Charles and Alex both talked about their inability to understand their boys as

68

41:.-

’ “do

if ..

somewhat of an impediment to a really close relationship. They both indicated that they
expressed love towards their sons and described their sons in positive terms. However,
both of them talked about how the lack of shared interests created somewhat of a void in
the relationship. Caroline remembered that her son was very easy to talk with. However,
she reflected “I wasn’t the typical mom because I worked full time and wasn’t able to do
a lot of the things that many mothers were doing back then. I wasn’t overly involved
with him, but I think we had a good relationship.” When asked whether she would call
their relationship “close” she responded, “Well, I think we both knew that we loved one
another, but I wouldn’t describe it as overly close. I think I am pretty independent and
don’t have the tendency to be really huggy or show a lot of affection.”
Theme: Ease of Raising Child

Most all of the parents characterized their sons as being generally very easy
children to raise. In fact, when asked where they would place that child on a scale of
easy to difficult in relation to the overall child-rearing experience, many of them
emphasized that they were “very” or “extremely” easy children as far as not having to
impose much discipline. It was very common to hear these parents state, “No, he was
hardly ever a problem” in relation to their gay sons. Susan recalled that her son “had a
mind of his own and was very clear about how he thought about things and often engaged
in debate with us over different issues, but he wasn’t really a discipline problem.” She
struggled to remember any major issues related to discipline but then stated, “I can only
remember one time where we had to come down on him a little bit. We found some beer
in his room and of course he said ‘it’s not mine,’ but then he eventually admitted that it

was. You know, kid stuff like that, but overall he wasn’t a problem.”

69

, A.
a!

. it

(A I

'll’

A few parents not only remembered that their sons were very well behaved, but
stated that it was a noticeable contrast from one of their other children. Amelia
remembered that “overall he was very easy, and I think because we had the comparison
of his older brother he seemed all the easier! I can’t remember any major discipline
problems we ever had with Peter.” Her husband, Harris did not recall any major
problems in terms of discipline but “worried about him socially a little bit.” Another
parent, Greg responded that his son was “very easy, never a problem. Our daughter on
the other hand, she was something else!”

Two of the fathers recognized that they had a difficult time “understanding” their
sons because their sons’ behaviors and interests were such a sharp departure fiom their
own. These fathers stated that their own discomfort might have shaded their experiences
of raising these sons. Charles described “He was not a bad kid in any way, but I just
didn’t ‘get him’ so that felt difficult sometimes. It wasn’t really him. It was me.” Alex
also described very positive attributes in terms of his son’s behavior. He stated, “He was
an adult at four years old. . .always exercised good judgment. He probably wasn’t
difficult to raise, but because I was so hyper vigilant about his feminine behavior, I
experienced him as difficult sometimes.”

Code: Relationship During the Coming Out Process

The coming out of a gay person to their family represents a transition for both the
gay person and for the family members themselves. There may be some renegotiating of
these relationships in response to the revelation that a child is gay. Most all of the parents
in this study had positive relationships with their sons’ prior to them coming out. Even

the two fathers who described some difficulty in terms of their personal understanding of

70

their sons, did not characterize their father-son relationships in overall negative terms.
This study sought to examine the parents’ relationships with their children across time
and appreciate the impact that their sons’ coming out had on their relationships. With
this particular sample of parents, having their sons come out as gay invoked very little
stress on the parent-child relationships. This is not to say that they didn’t have some
difficulty coming to terms with the fact that their sons were gay, but rather they did not
allow their own struggle to negatively disrupt those relationships. Two primary themes
that emerged in this code: _'

l) Contact and Connectedness

2) Low Levels of Conflict
Theme: Contact and Connectedness

Research has frequently spoken to the fear that gays and lesbians have in relation

to the rejection by or withdrawal of love and affection from family members upon
disclosure of their gay and lesbian identities (LaSala, 2000). Both research and popular
literature have cited incidences of parents who have so strongly rejected their children
that those relationships have been severed completely. None of the parents in this sample
experienced any kind of cut-off for any length of time fi'om their sons. In fact, the
overwhehning theme was that even in the face of the parents’ personal struggles, all of
them maintained steady and consistent contact with their sons during the time of
disclosure. Charles who described a fair amount of personal difficulty in the beginning
assured his son, “we will work this out and you never need to worry about feeling
welcome.” In fact, they engaged in more conversation about this issue than they had

about anything in the past. Helen and Bill, the two parents who described the largest

71

amount of angst over their son’s disclosure, did not abandon their relationships with him.
They describe that they regret how they handled the initial stages of the process by
suggesting that their son go to a psychiatrist to try to “change,” however, they maintained
frequent contact with him and did not withdraw any love or affection.

Surprisingly, many of the parents in this sample did not experience a significant
process in terms of adjusting to the fact that their sons were gay. All of the parents made
some verbal gesture of support upon their sons’ disclosures. Many of them described
increased contact around the period of the disclosure and stated that those conversations
seemed to provide reciprocal reinforcement of their relationships.

Theme: Low Level of Conflict

Another prevailing and somewhat related theme involves the lack of overt conflict
the parents and sons experienced around the sons’ coming out. It was clear that some
parents were having a hard time reconciling their sons’ gay identities with their own
previously held concepts. These parents, however, did not engage in reprobation or
virulent arguments with their sons over their sexual identities. Charles described drinking
in his mind that this was something he “could fix” and talked about some intense
conversations with his son. He described some debate with his son, but stated that the two
of them “always remained calm and respectful with one another. We always allowed the
other person to share his view.” He did not characterize this conflict as negative, but
rather as a tool that eventually contributed to his growth.

Two other parents, Bob and Helen who had engaged the help of a psychiatrist for
their son described that they did not fight with their son about the issue. He was willing

to see a psychiatrist because he initially wanted to try and change as well. They always

72

h“ r" tuufim I
. I

listened to him and when he told them he believed he was gay and could not change, they
accepted his decision.

The rest of the parents in the sample did not describe any ongoing debate or
conflict with their sons. Susan’s “We didn’t fight about it. I don’t know, it wasn’t a big
deal as far as our relationship went” was a fairly good characterization of most of the
parents observations about the impact of disclosure on their actual relationships with their

sons. Theresa’s comment also captured the commitment these parents felt to their

Is-“flm-n.‘

relationships with their children, despite the presence of internal conflict. She stated, ._._.
”You know, I wasn’t thrilled by the announcement, but it wasn’t a source of conflict
between us. He is my son and I love him. I’d be damned if I’d let the fact that he is gay
affect our relationship negatively.”
Code: Present Relationship

In healthy functioning families, positive relationships between members are
characterized as being able to withstand the presence of differences between them. (Kerr
& Bowen,l988). This sample of parents indicated positive relationships with their sons
that dated back to their sons’ childhoods. The constancy of those positive relationships
was evident across this sample of parents. Every parent in this study shares in common
the fact that their present relationships with their sons are not only positive, but close and
thriving. The one theme that emerged under this code was Growth.
Theme: Growth

While most of the parents described that they had always had good relationships
with their sons, many of the parents also talked about the crisis of their sons coming out

being an impetus for a deeper relationship between them. This was especially true of the

73

parents who had a more difficult time reconciling their sons’ gay identities in the
beginning. Charles specifically points to the coming out process as providing a forum for
very intimate conversation between the two of them. He stated, “It gave us an
opportunity to talk about things in ways we never did before. We were more vulnerable
to each other during that time. I think it almost served as a way to strengthen our bon .”
Even among the parents who didn’t describe a large struggle with regards to coming to
terms with their sons being gay, many of them talked about how going through the
experience together brought them closer. Kate who had suspected that her son was gay
long before he came out says, “Once it was out in the open, I felt that we were closer.
There wasn’t something that had to be hidden. I wasn’t preoccupied wondering about it,
and he wasn’t preoccupied about how or when he would disclose it to me.”
Parents’ Stories of Their Coming Out Processes

The personal narratives of the parents with regard to their coming out processes as
parents of gay sons were of primary interest under this class. Specifically, the relevant
research question was: What are the reflections of parents as they story their own coming
out process and the acquisition of their identities as "parents of gay sons?" The story
chronicle is a logical fit for this population in particular because it allowed the parents the
chance to conceptualize an ongoing process as a story (Schnitzer, 1993). Insight about
one’s process is often strengthened by the ability of the individual to make sense of their
experience through personal narratives (White & Epston, 1990.)

Additionally, the use of the story metaphor captures concepts of human ecology
that provided the theoretical underpinnings of this project as a whole, namely, the

influences of time, conceptualized by Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) chronosystem and the

74

tail

rt-.r .

,ccommodation of persons and contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). These factors are
rnportant as they relates to the parents’ coming out process. Also, an appreciation of
.ominant cultural influences is crucial to both the story metaphor and to an ecological
.pproach. These parents’ unique accounts of their processes were able to be captured
because the story telling approach allowed them the fi'eedom to construct and reflect
upon the relevant influences of biological, psychological, and social history on their
experiences and gave them the freedom to develop their stories in a way that was
congruent with their those experiences and created meaning for them (Harold et al.,
1995). The data was coded to reflect the primary areas of focus in their stories and
included Prior Awareness, Disclosure, Coping Strategies, Difiicult Aspects, Gay Culture,
and Present Experience. These codes closely match the process by which parents
negotiate their own coming out process as outlined by Crosbie-Burnett et al. (1996.)
Code: Prior Awareness
The issue of prior awareness, even at the subconscious level may be
representative of the inchoate coming out process for the parents of gay children much as
the literature on the coming out process for gays and lesbians conceptualizes a
sensitization stage for gays and lesbians themselves (Cass, 1979, Coleman, 1982, and
Troiden, 1988). Most of the parents in this sample had some prior awareness of their
sons’ gay identities prior to the actual time their sons came out to them. These levels of
awareness ranged from a fair amount of certainty though an inkling on the periphery of
their consciousness to a passing thought. Only two of the parents indicated total surprise

when their sons came out to them. Three themes emerged in relation to prior awareness:

1) Lack of Dating

75

2) Gender Qualities
3) Specific Incidences
"heme: Lack of Dating
The strongest impetus for parents’ suspicions regarding the possibility that their
sons might be gay was their sons’ lack of interest in girls or dating. Ten of the parents
specifically cited the lack of interest in girls as the primary source of their suspicions.
Over and over parents made similar comments that they suspected because “He just
wasn’t interested in dating girls, whatsoever.” This lack of interest indicated to them “a '
departure from the dominant idea of the adolescent male with raging hormones seeking to
lose his virginity. . .to a girl” as Harris succinctly stated. Only Caroline recognized this
quality in her son but did not relate it to his sexuality. She stated, “Well, Doug was never
interested in sports, he was interested in more ‘girl-like’ things, and he never dated but
you know, I never ever thought he was gay.”
Several of the parents commented on the fact that their sons had a lot of “friends
who were girls, but no girlfiiends.” Helen stated, “I think he had so many friends who
were girls rather than boys because his interests were more along the lines of girls’
interests and it was easier for him to share those interests with them rather than with other
boys. But he sure never was interested in a romantic way.” Two of the parents talked
about being puzzled when their sons’ close fiiendships with some female fiiends did not
develop into romantic interests. Joe remembered, “There was this girl who really liked
Doug a lot but he never liked her for more than a fiiend. Her mom would talk to me
about the fact that she, the girl, had a huge crush on Doug. And this girl was very cute

and nice and smart and she and Doug shared a lot of common interests and got along so

76

rell. I never understood why he didn’t want a dating relationship with her. I would say,

What’s wrong with her?” Susan talked about a similar experience. She remembered her

on being really good fiiends with one of her daughter’s fiiends. She described the girl

3 having “a lot going for her” and knew that this girl was interested in her son and was

hoping he would show an interest in her as well. She laughed, “We would ask him, Todd,
why on earth don’t you like her? And he would respond, I do like her. . .as a friend!”

Theme: Gender Qualities

1'“

Along with the lack of dating, many of the parents also tied their suspicions of
their sons being gay to the sons’ atypical gender interests. It is interesting to note that all
of the parents specifically remembered that their sons were not interested in sports.
Every parent commented on this fact. A few of the fathers talked about having a difficult
time understanding this because they had been very active in sports when they were
younger. Bob stated, “I always really enjoyed athletics but Chris was never into sports.
Sometimes I didn’t ‘get it.‘ But, even though we had different interests we were able to
find things that we could participate in and enjoy together.”
Two of the fathers expressed that they had experienced disappointment with their
sons’ lack of interest in sports. Charles recalled being excited when he bought his son a
new glove. He remembered taking him out to the back yard to try and teach him to catch
and throw. He was dismayed by his son’s lack of interest in the activity. He recollected,
“I remember I’d throw and he’d miss. I’d try to show him how to throw correctly and he
didn’t catch on. He just seemed bored. The ball would get past him every time and I
would send him after it. Pretty soon I noticed he wasn’t even looking for the ball but his

attention was completely absorbed by an anthill on the ground. He was more interested

77

1 that.” He went on to add, “I always thought he was an unusual kid, but I couldn’t put
1y finger on it. At times it was very frustrating to me that he didn’t like athletics. They
rere important to me and I always assumed that a boy would be interested in sports. He
rasn’t.”
Alex stated, “He didn’t do ‘male’ firings, he was into theatre. I thought boys were
supposed to like sports and I was disappointed that he would rather be on stage than on a
playing field.” Alex in particular had a difficult time with his son’s feminine behavior
and indicated that it was what caused his “original fear that he was gay.” Alex, perhaps
more than any of the other parents was aware of his own process of coming out before his
son ever came out to him. He talked about recognizing that his son was probably gay
when the boy was very young and not being pleased with the idea. He expressed that he
had a lot of internal homophobia and remembers a time when his son was in elementary
school and Alex was noticing his son’s increasingly feminine behavior and yelled to his
wife in a fit of anger, “He’s probably gay, you know that don’t you?” Alex had
processed most of his homophobia considerably by the time his son came out and was
actually very accepting towards his son when he did come out during his first year of
college.
Sandy recognized her son’s “lack of interest in the typical boy things” pretty early
on. She stated, “He liked reading, photography and music and he never played with the
toys like trucks or played the typical cops and robbers games that a lot of boys did.”
Harris reflected on his son’s atypical interests by saying, “I know this probably sounds
really stereotypical, like all gay men are florists or something, but Peter really loved

flowers and gardening. He became a member of the Rose Society when he was still a

78

if"

 

teenager.” Caroline remembered that her son “liked to do things that you would picture a
girl doing. He loved to read Judy Blume books in elementary school and in high school
he was a huge Madonna fan. Maybe that should have been a clue! I never consciously
thought about him being gay, but sometimes I wonder if there was some subconscious
awareness because I remember at least thinking that is was different.”

Kate recognized some atypical gender qualities in her son but it took some time

for her to relate it to the possibility that he was gay. She stated, “I didn’t think a lot about

"Mn"???- )1
l —1

it when he was growing up. Maybe now and then I would think that the typical cliche
'boys will be boys’ didn’t fit, but that didn’t necessarily mean that he was gay. When he
started to date in high school, he didn’t really seem interested in the girls. The
relationships were never intense and never lasted very long. It was probably when he
was in his twenties that I started to suspect it, because of the whole picture.” Kate was
one of two parents who directly asked her son if he was gay. Her son used that as the
opportunity to come out to her. The other parent, Bob had decided to broach the topic
with his son once when they were on a ski trip together. He remembered, “When I asked
him, he didn’t deny it right away, but there was this long pause and then he did deny it. I
guess we changed the subject then but I have to tell you, I was relieved at that point.”
Theme: Specific Incidences

Several parents mentioned specific incidences that either triggered their
awareness or furthered their previous suspicions. Of the six couples, only two of them
talked about their suspicions with their spouses prior to finding out that their sons were
gay. Of the specific incidences mentioned, the most common was the suggestion by

another person that their sons were gay. Both Alex and Natalie, who are married talked

79

about a time that the youth minister from their church approached them directly about the
possibility that their son could be gay. They attended a liberal church, and the minister
wanted to make sure that their son would have adequate support. Bob had a fiiend who
suggested to him that his son might be gay and shortly after that, Bob addressed the issue
with his son on the ski trip mentioned previously. Joe also had a woman who worked
with him ask if he ever thought that his son might be gay. Additionally, Joe’s son, Doug
had a fiiend who had started a rumor at school that Doug was gay. Joe stated, “At the
time, Doug told me it wasn’t true, but I’m not sure if he even realized it about himself
yet. Even though he said that, it still raised the issue for me, in my min .”

There were other random events that parents noted with regard to their suspicions
being raised about their sons’ being gay. Susan talked about her son being the editor of
his college newspaper and the fact that there were an increasing amount of articles being
devoted to various gay issues. She said, “I guess I wondered if Todd was behind all of
that or at least since he was the editor that he was supporting this. The articles just kept
coming out more and more after he became editor.” She also recalled that her brother,
who she later found out was also gay, was running for state representative during that
time period. Her brother was taking a vocal stand for gay rights and Todd started helping
him with his campaign. Her husband Charles also mentioned these incidences when he
was interviewed. He also recalled a specific time when his son was in junior high and
was wrestling with a male fiiend. Charles noted, “He seemed to have an unusual
' enjoyment of the physical contact. There was just a quality about it that reminded me

more of what a boy would act like towards a girl, not another boy.”

80

'1‘.

Code: Disclosure

While many of the parents talked about their previous suspicions, the actual
disclosure by their sons marked the official beginning of the coming out process for
them. The tendency for a lot of the parents during the stage of initial suspicion was to
give it only a little thought and then “put it aside.” Alex stated, “I knew it, I just knew
that he was going to be gay, but my early inclination was to deny it.” It wasn’t until their
sons made the actual disclosure that most of the parents began to actively address the
issue of having a gay son. When the parents talked about the initial disclosure, two
themes emerged:

1) How and When Disclosure was Made
2) Reactions

Theme: How and When Disclosure was Made

For the parents in this sample, the actual event of having their sons’ disclose the
fact that they were gay remains very clear in their minds. Every parent in the sample was
able to recall with great specificity how and when their sons told them that they were gay.
Most all of them recalled how long ago this occurred. Many of them recalled the month
or the day of the week and a few of them recalled the exact date. Winnie remembered
that her son had sent a letter and on the envelope he had written that he wanted her and
her husband to read it together. She said, “I was a little worried. I never thought it was
going to say what it said. I think I thought there might be something wrong with Brad
seeing as how he made it a point to tell us to read it together. I knew it was something
important.” Winnie still had the letter. She stated that she felt his method of disclosing

in a letter probably gave her the chance experience her own shock and sadness without

81

him seeing it and construing it as an unsupportive response. She and her husband, Greg
called him a few hours after reading the letter. She said, “I think looking back, that Brad
coming out to us in this way was the best way to do it. As you can see, the letter is very
articulate and beautifully written and of course, his sense of humor comes through.
Especially the part where he says, ‘You are probably wondering how you can be helpful
or supportive of me during this time. Well, you can dispense with your questions about

marriage once and for all for starters! ’ That’s just very Brad. He’s always pretty positive

. a..." rim or _

‘—. ..

and upbeat and I think his attitude about it was one of the things that was most helpful.”

Several of the parents said that their sons made a point of coming over to their
homes specifically to tell the parents that they were gay. Amelia recalls, “Yes, it was on
a Sunday night and it was in November. He just stopped by and said he had something to
talk to us about and I knew what he was going to say. I think I heard the words come out
of his mouth before he actually said them. And then he said that he was gay.” She and
her husband, Harris, both related separately that their son Peter had come out to his older
brother several months prior to coming out to them. Their older son had told Peter that
he did not want to continue to cover for Peter and encouraged him to tell their parents and
that they would likely be very supportive. Charles and Susan’s son told them because he
was becoming very active in the gay community and was going to be featured in a
newspaper article the following week. They both remembered that he did not want them
to be shocked when they saw him in the paper.

Caroline’s son came out to her on a car trip when she was taking him back to
college after a visit home. She had asked him if he had gotten involved with any

activities on campus and he replied that he had gotten involved with a gay group on

82

campus. She remembered him asking, “That’s all right, isn’t it?” and that, although she
was very surprised, she was supportive. He indicated that he was worried about telling
his dad, Joe, and asked if she would tell him. Joe had just started a new job and was
living in their new house a few hours away. They were in the process of selling their
home and Caroline was still at the old home. Joe remembered, “Caroline called and told
me that Doug had told her that he was gay and that he was very concerned about what my
reaction would be. And I said, ‘Well, I don’t have any problem with that. I’ll call him
and talk with him.’ And that’s pretty much what I did. I told him I loved him and we
didn’t have any problems with it.”

Kate remembers that she had been suspecting for a long time that her son was
gay. She and her son were driving to visit her daughter and she felt like being alone in
the car together was a good time to have a conversation. She remembers saying, “Scott,
you know, any life style you choose would be okay with me.” When asked about his
reaction she stated, “At the time, there was just this long pause from Scott. I think he was
a little surprised and I could tell he was processing what I said. I waited and he didn’t say
anything about it and we just started talking about some other things. The next day on
the way back home Scott said, I was thinking about what you said yesterday, so your
probably know what I am about to tell you. . .and then he told me.”
Theme: Reactions

The range of the reactions to their sons’ disclosures were somewhat congruent
with the literature, which indicates that shock, denial, guilt, sadness and blame are the
most common reactions (Savin-Williams & Dube, 1998). The majority of the parents,

however, worked through the more negative feelings fairly quickly. These parents,

83

particularly the mothers, most often cited sadness as their primary feeling. Much of this
sadness was related to losses of dreams for their sons concerning marriage or
grandchildren that were perceived by the parents. Many of the parents, along with the
sadness, stated that they felt concern for their sons in terms of discrimination. Winnie
stated, “Brad was always well-liked and popular and I wondered if that would change
once people started to find out. That was really sad for me to think about people thinking
less of Brad because he was gay. You want everyone else to love him and respect him
the way you do, and I just didn’t know how people would respond.”

Helen and Bill were the only parents who described truly negative reactions to
their son being gay. Helen stated, “We didn’t get angry with him directly, but I wouldn’t
say we were supportive. I just wanted to get through lunch and back to the hotel, and
then all hell broke loose.” She described that she and her husband, Bob started “hurling
accusations at one another.” Bob recalled that part of the incident as well, “Helen and I
started playing the blame game with each other. My reaction towards Chris was that I
still loved him, and would never have turned my back on him, but I probably wasn’t
giving him messages that I supported him being gay.” Bob also stated that he was
surprised since his son had denied that he was gay on the ski trip the previous year. Bob
remembers, “I asked him how long he had known and Chris said he had known he was
different at seven years old, but by junior high, he knew it was because he was gay. I was
just so surprised and a little bit scared that maybe me bringing it up to him the year before
had planted the seed in his h .”

Two of the other mothers described feeling some level of shock. Caroline said, “I

guess I was just very, very surprised. Not angry or rejecting, but it was just something

84

that hadn’t occurred to me and something to get used to.” Theresa’s son Tim was living
in Chicago and had significantly decreased his contact for a few months. She had been
worried about him and called his ex-girlfiiend, Kathy to see if she had heard fiom him.
Eventually, Kathy called her and told her that she had found out that Tim was gay.
Theresa remembers, “I was just so stunned and I didn’t know if I should be relieved that
he wasn’t strung out on drugs or something, or worried because he was gay.”

There were several parents who expressed that they felt relieved. Harris said, “I
think we were immediately affirming and not judgmental in any way, and I for one felt
pretty relieved. My hunch about it had been verified and I thought now we can just move
on with it.” Susan had a similar reaction, “I think I was just pretty relieved. I think I
probably already knew deep down that Todd was gay and I was glad it was finally out in
the open.”

A majority of the parents, despite their own feelings, made it a point to tell their
sons that they still loved them. None of the parents displayed anger toward their sons.
Helen and Bob both acknowledged that they had a lot of anger, but that they directed it
towards each other rather than their son. Many of the parents asked their sons at some
point about whether they had thought about how their parents would react before coming
out to them. Most of the sons did not believe that their parents would be rejecting, but
many of them talked about it being scary for them because it was an “unknown.” Many
of them had heard stories of parents being rejecting and it was something that existed in
the back of their minds so they just weren’t sure of how their parents would react. It
wasn’t so much a fear of complete rejection fiom their parents as a worry that their

parents might not be able to accept and validate their identities as gay men.

85

Code: Coping Strategies
Following the disclosure by their sons, many of the parents described moving to a

stage where they wanted to try to understand more about the issue of homosexuality.
During the early stages of their evolution, information gathering was a significant part of
their processes. They elicited different sources to help them understand, however the
primary themes that emerged under this code included:

1) Communication

2) Information Gathering

3) Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG)
Theme: Communication

The majority of the parents described that they spent a lot of time of talking with

their sons about issues related to their gay identities and gay issues in general. For most
of the parents, the time following disclosure marked a time of increased contact between
the parents and sons. The parents talked with their sons about both the personal aspects
of their sons’ own coming out processes and about various political issues. When asked
how often she and her son talked about issues related to his gay identity, Winnie laughed,
“Oh all the time! I think I talked the subject into the ground with Brad, with Greg, with
everybody. I think it may have been the only topic of conversation in our house for a
long time, but I think that’s what helped me a lot. Brad and I talked about a whole
spectrum of things related to him being gay. I learned a lot.” This general idea was
echoed by many of the parents.

Charles said the ongoing commitment by his son to debate the various issues with

86

him was what propelled him to greater understanding. He stated, “Originally I thought,
‘we’ll work this out,’ which to me meant that there was some way of convincing him that
he was not gay or could change. Todd was very well informed and articulate in
expressing his views. Eventually, I had to admit, ‘you’re right and I’m wrong.’ Our
conversations were instrumental to my growth about the issue.”

Many of the parents also cited conversations with others as being helpfirl to them.
With the exception of Bob and Helen, who stated that conversations about their son’s gay
identity were negative and severely strained their relationship in the beginning, all of the
parents said that they talked extensively with their spouses following disclosure. They
felt that the conversations were mutually helpful and that their relationships with each
other remained positive. Theresa recalled that she had initially tried to talk to her
minister, but that he told her that he would support her, but couldn’t support Tim or his
“lifestyle.” She stated that she and her husband felt isolated for a long time, “We only
had each other to talk to and we relied on each other a lot.”

Some parents turned to family members and close fiiends. Some of these
conversations were indicative of the early stages of their processes of coming out to
others as the parent of a gay child. This was an integral part of their identity
development. The act of “coming out” themselves along with the support received from
others was a reciprocal process that contributed to their evolution towards total
acceptance.

Theme: Information Gathering
Along with the conversations the parents had with others, many of the parents

immersed themselves in literature about gays and lesbians. Harris said that he had

87

always enjoyed debating issues, especially controversial ones and that since he found out
his son was gay the topic became a special interest to him. He said, “I tried to get as
much information as I could and I also shared it with Amelia [his wife].” Other parents
made comments such as “I tried to read everything I could get my hands on.” Susan and
Charles’ son had brought several books and videos with him when he came to tell his
parents that he was gay. Originally, he left the information in the car because he thought
his parents might not want to see it. Charles felt badly that he would feel that way. Both
he and Susan utilized all of the information and found it helpfirl.

While many of the parents used literature to help them in the early stages of their
coming out process, many also said that they have continued to be interested in
increasing their knowledge about gay issues. Several parents talked about their increased
interest in political topics related to gays and lesbians and talked about the fact that they
stay current on these issues by watching the news and reading the newspaper. Joe and
Caroline stated that they started subscribing to a gay magazine so they could discuss
current issues. Related to activism, several of the parents mentioned activities related to
general advocacy such as investigating political candidates’ views on gay and lesbian
issues before voting. The process of gathering information was pervasive throughout the
sample and has been an ongoing process that has contributed to greater depth of
understanding for many of the parents.

Theme: Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLA G)
All of the parents in this study had been recruited through Parents and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG) and utilized P-Flag support services for some time.

Theresa and her husband, who is now deceased, were the original founders of the Grand

88

Rapids chapter of P-Flag along with another couple. She remembered that she and her
husband had felt so isolated in terms of not having anybody to talk with and that one day
the newspaper was running a series of articles about gays and lesbians in Grand Rapids.
She said that the newspaper was only using the first names of the people who were
interviewed but she immediately recognized that one of the couples in the article, who
were telling their story about having a gay son, were friends of her and her husband.

Theresa said, “We had thought we were all alone with this until this point, but then we

. . .1. “TI.
I

realized there was actually somebody we knew that had gone through a similar

F

experience and could understand what this was like. So I took a chance and called them.”
She related that they got together and started talking about how they could help others.
The other couple had heard of P-FLAG, but there was not a local chapter. The four of
them decided to start one. She talked about the evolution of the local P-Flag, “At first we
just found a local church that allowed us to use some space for meetings. We had to get
the word out, and Dignity, another support group that helped gay people reconcile issues
of religion helped us. People used to come and for the first three sessions they would just
cry and cry. We felt like we were providing something that was needed. After a while,
people who had gotten to a more comfortable place and who were more familiar with the
process became leaders at meetings. So we started to branch out and grew in different
directions as we became more organized. With time we stared offering more and it was
helpfirl to everyone, both the parents who were just beginning their journey and the
experienced parents who could give back.”

Several of the parents learned about P-F LAG fi'om their sons. Many of them said

that they were surprised that there was a support group that dealt with these issues. Their

89

 

degrees of involvement varied, as did the amount of time they spent actively involved.
All of the parents attended at least five meetings in the first years following their sons
disclosure to them.

Some of the parents only utilized the meetings for a short time, but continued to
receive newsletters and contribute financially. Susan said the meetings were somewhat
helpful but that she only attended five or six because, “I think a lot of people were
struggling more than we were and I thought we really didn’t need to go because we were
doing pretty well with the whole thing. And it got really sad to listen to the rejection
stories. I suppose we probably should have gone longer because maybe we could have
been helpful to some of the parents who were struggling and needed to hear positive
things.” She did say that she and her husband have been called by P-FLAG to speak to
various forums and that they have done that.

Several parents said that attending the meetings and hearing the stories of
rejection furthered their own acceptance of their sons. Winnie and Greg were very
involved with P-FLAG for a number of years. Early in their journey, they met a young
gay man at the meetings who had been rejected by his parents and thrown out of his
house. She recalled, “He was really struggling so Greg and I kind of adopted him as a
second son and helped him through this difficult time. I think in helping him and seeing
how poorly he had been treated by his own parents, and seeing how much he was hurting,
that made it even more important for us to work through this.” Harris said, “We
attended P-F LAG early on and I think hearing some of those stories in the various groups
made you realize all of the devastation done to families by this, and it was so needless

and senseless.” Caroline and Joe have been continually very active with P-FLAG.

90

Caroline recalled, “We got involved with P-F LAG right away and moved ahead and just
threw ourselves into this. Over the years, our involvement has just increased and it
occupies a lot of our time. I think for a while we were sort of the poster parents for
gays!”

Kate found P-F LAG invaluable to her own process. She said that she had never
heard of the organization but that her son had told her about it. She stated, “It ended up
being one of the most helpful things for me. Those meetings made me believe that it
wasn’t enough to just ‘deal with it,’ but you also have to come out yourself as a parent to
go through the process more fully. You also have the opportunity to help others who are
going through a similar experience and that takes you to a whole other level yourself.”
Kate and others talked about how helpful the small group sessions were. Kate found
them very helpful because, “You could talk as long as you needed to without being
interrupted. I could say anything I wanted and knew my feelings would be respected by
the group. Also, hearing about how other people dealt with negative experiences helped
me feel stronger. So if I were to have negative experiences, I knew I could go back to the
group and talk about it.”

Code: Dzflicult Aspects

The relative ease in which most of the parents were able to accept their sons’ gay
identities shortly after the initial disclosure was somewhat surprising. During their
stories of their own coming out processes however, the parents did relate some of the
more difficult aspects of their evolution. These difficulties generally did not relate to a
personal difficulty in accepting their sons, but rather in overcoming a general anxiety

about gay culture that was unknown to them and being able to stand up to homophobic

91

attitudes, ideas, and comments by people they encountered in their various ecosystemic
environments. The primary themes that emerged under this code included:

1) Transcending Stereotypes and Negative Sexual Images

2) Fear of Negative Repercussions for Sons

3) Regret About Failure to be Supportive Earlier in the Process

4) Coming Out to Others.

Theme: T ranscending Stereotypes and Negative Sexual Images
Six parents talked about their processes in terms of “unlearning” some of the

misrepresentations about “the gay lifestyle.” Bob said that prior to getting to his present
acceptance he had felt “turned off by what I perceived as some aspects of the culture.”
When asked to expand he stated, “Well, the things that people think of when they think of
gay people. . .stereotypical stuff when you are not informed otherwise. Like I would think
of things you read on the walls of restrooms and men picking other men up at rest stops.
Also, having the idea that all gay men were cross-dressers.” The other five parents spoke
to similar images that made them uncomfortable.

Each of the six parents talked about having to get past the idea that gay men were
promiscuous and not capable of monogamous relationships. Finally, five of the six men
talked about their initial difficulty in envisioning two men acting romantically towards
one another. Specifically, these men had some difficulty, as Alex stated, “getting beyond

the imagined sexual images.” None of them described a feeling of being totally repulsed,
but rather stated that it was merely a difficult thing about which to drink. Joe talked
about this concept very casually, “I think it was a little bit difficult for me because of how

‘11 flTalent the idea of a man and a man or a woman and a woman was for me to imagine.

92

Maybe just mentally picturing it or getting used to the idea of seeing two people of the
same sex act romantically towards each other. . .it wasn’t a problem so much, just
something to get used to.”

Theme: Fear of Negative Repercussions for Sons

Several parents talked about their fears for their sons once the sons told them that
they were gay. The parents most often cited worries that their sons might experience
discriminatory behavior by others in various facets of their lives. Kate’s son is a teacher
and she talked about a case of a gifted and well-loved high school music teacher who had
lost his job when a small group of parents found out that he was gay. The case was well
publicized and Kate stated, “It was awful what that man went through. He was
persecuted by parents and colleagues who had at one time sung his praises.” Many of
these individuals engaged in a very negative public diatribe that endangered the teacher’s
emotional and physical health and eventually the stress exacerbated a heart condition that
led to his death. Kate continued, “I was concerned about Scott and wondered if
something like this could happen to him too.” Harris also talked about worrying about

the potential loss of business for his self-employed son, should people become aware of

the fact he was gay.
Several parents talked about their fears for their sons’ emotional and physical

Safety. They were all aware of the powerful and destructive effects of homophobia and
talked about it being difficult for them when they realized the difficulties their sons may
face because they were gay. This was exacerbated for some of them when they would
Watch the news or read about incidences of gay bashing in the paper. Theresa said, “You

think you’ve worked through it all, but even twenty years later, you hear something like

93

__-' A

the Matthew Shepard incident, and it undoes you a little.” Harris also brought up the
incident of the high school music teacher in terms of the emotional strain, “You get the
feeling that there are still witch hunts in this modem-day. It was a very specific example
of how society’s homophobia can still be such a powerfirl and negative tool and how
people’s fear of gays can become destructive to someone’s life. Also, you see the lengths
that people will go to so that they won’t have to face something they are uncomfortable

with. It was devastating. It happened right here in Grand Rapids and I worried that

F‘Tfiri-rir—L, I
l.

something like that could happen to Peter or Ric.”
Most all of the parents also cited fears about AIDS as a significant concern for

them earlier in their processes, which was consistent with previous literature (Robinson,
Walters, & Skeen, 1989). Susan stated, “I think I was pretty scared about different safety
and discrimination issues, but AIDS was the worst thought for me. Once Todd reassured
me that he wasn’t putting himself at risk for AIDS, I felt better.” Several of the parents
had conversations with their sons about safe sex and the issue of HIV/AIDS and reported
feeling reassured once their sons conveyed their own understanding of the necessity of
safe sex. Sadly, Caroline and Joe’s son eventually developed HIV. Caroline is a
registered nurse and states that she had always been very open in talking about different
issues related to sex when he was growing up. This was also true when he came out. She
Specifically made a point of talking with him about HIV/AIDS. She talked about her
Original fears, “I feared for his safety and worried about him being physically or
e11‘lotionally hurt. Gays can suffer great discrimination. The most difficult thing was
finding out he was HIV positive. It was like all those worries coming to fruition and I

couldn’t believe it was happening.” She described feeling angry at her son for putting

94

himself at risk when “he should have known better.” However, she and Joe have

continued to be very supportive of him.
Theme: Regret About Failure to be Supportive Earlier in the Process

Finally, many of the parents talked about feelings of regret that they had not been
available to their sons for emotional support during their sons’ early struggles in coming
to terms with their identities. Winnie related, “I think the worst thing was just the
thought that I wasn’t able to be supportive of Brad while he was growing up and
struggling with this issue. I hate that he had to go through this alone or that he felt too
scared to tell either me or Greg that he was gay or thought he was gay when he was
younger. And then I go back and wonder if I ever said anything ignorant or hurtful about

gay people or if I ever did anything that made it harder for him or made him struggle
more.” Winnie’s eyes filled with tears as she made this statement, and then she
commented, “See, that thought still hurts after all this time.” Several other parents talked
about feeling that they had been inadequate in not being there for their sons during their
sons’ early struggles prior to disclosing to them. It was not uncommon for some of the
parents to become tearful. Helen and Bob both talked about their regret in how they
approached their son’s disclosure in the early stages. Helen stated, “I want to think that
We never treated him badly, but I think that trying to make him change in the beginning
and basically demanding that he see a psychiatrist solely for that purpose was probably
not a nice way to treat him. It wasn’t supportive and it probably was cruel [she starts
crying]. . .Wow, it still makes me sad to think about that.” Several parents also talked
about their feelings of sadness being heightened when they would hear stories of other

gays and lesbians who had struggled with family rejection. It was unsettling for them to

95

fl}..-

think of their sons struggling alone without their support.
Theme: Coming Out to Others

Coming out to other people regarding their gay or lesbian identities is said to be a
crucial part of identity development for gays and lesbians (Cass, 1979, Coleman, 1982,
and Troiden, 1988.) a Similarly, the process of coming out to others was both a source of
difficulty and growth for these parents. Coming out was a process that parents became
more comfortable with as they transcended their fear of the attached stigma (Frable et al.,
1998). Several parents talked about feeling uneasy when they first started disclosing to
family and fiiends. Susan stated, “It was hard at first, telling others and not being sure
about how they would react. I think we made it a point to tell relatives or people we
thought should know, but then we wondered if we should let Todd tell them himself. It
got easier with time.” Amelia recalled, “I remember telling a couple who had been our
best friends for many years and the man just started crying, as if we had told him
someone had died. It was like they felt sorry for us and that’s not what I wanted. After
that I just started worrying about people’s reactions but over time I got past my fear. We
never had any friends who shunned us because of it. . .but I think that one reaction caught
me off guard. Eventually, I went back to those fiiends and told them that their response
had not been helpful and we worked through it. I think that was a turning point, having
the courage to bring it up.”

Four of the mothers stated that they had worried about people “blaming” them for
their sons being gay or making hurtful comments. This is a common fear for parents
because traditionally held myths about “domineering mothers and passive fathers” that

heavily pervaded society at one time. While these misconceptions are not as prevalent

96

now as they were at one time, they have not been completely ameliorated (Mallon, 1992).
Helen stated, “I thought people would think it was my fault, but therapy helped me
realize it was my own baggage.” She talked about her fear of reactions from others
“driving her into the closet.” She remembered her fiiends kids planning weddings and
that they would ask her when her sons [both of her sons are gay, although we focused
only on her coming out process related to the first son for this project] might get married.
She said, “I always felt pressure about that. Afier a while, I started to tell some of my
closer fiiends whom I thought I could trust. That went pretty well, so I would tell more
people. After a while, I sort of lost track of who I told and who I hadn’t told, which made
it kind of difficult, but finally there came a time when I just thought, ‘Who the hell cares?
I shouldn’t have to hide this.’ I just started saying, ‘No, they are not married. They are
gay. That’s right, both of them!”

Several parents stated that they had gotten used to disclosing to selected family
and fiiends, but still found it difficult at times to stand up to people who told gay jokes or
engaged in a negative diatribe about gays and lesbians. Consistent with the literature,
their loyalties towards their sons and other gay and lesbian people about whom they had
come to care helped them transcend their fear (Eliason & Raheim, 1996). Kate recalled,
“I thought I was doing pretty good about coming out and then one day at work I was
faced with a secretary who is very religious and was talking very negatively about gays
and lesbians. It was the first time I felt like I had to stand up to someone. I told her that I
had a gay son and that her comments were hurtful. I felt stronger afterwards and believe
it or not, she actually started coming to me with questions and I think she started to

evaluate her own thinking a little bit.” Many of the parents described feeling empowered

97

when they transcended their fears and proactively confronted negative comments and
jokes. Winnie recalled an incident where an unexpected fear came over her even after
she had already come out to several people. She had been at a P-F LAG event and saw
some fiiends who were attending a wedding reception at the same location. She avoided
them because she had not told them and she didn’t want them to know she was associated
with a gay organization. She recalled feeling badly about it afterwards, “I felt ashamed
of myself for hiding so about a month later I made a point of going to these fiiends to tell
them. It didn’t bother them at all, and their response was very supportive.”
Code: Gay Culture
Research has spoken to the importance of gays and lesbians immersing
themselves in gay culture as an essential part of identity development (Cass, 1979,
Coleman 1982, Troiden, 1988). Getting to know other gays and lesbians is beneficial in
helping gays and lesbians to feel comfortable expressing this aspect of themselves in a
sympathetic environment (Gonsiorek and Rudolph, 1991). Several of the parents
indicated that this was an integral part of their own process as well. Two themes were
evident under this code:
1) Meeting and Interacting with Gays and Lesbians
2) Activism
Theme: Meeting and Interacting with Gays and Lesbians
Caroline’s reflection about the significant impact that meeting gays and lesbians
had on her acceptance was similar to several other parents’ comments. She said, “It was
so helpful for me to meet other gay people and get to know them. It goes beyond just

being accepting of your son or daughter. It helps you to be accepting of gays and

98

lesbians in general. I don’t miss the opportunity to discuss various issues with the gays
and lesbians I have met because I always learn something new. You have to be willing to
admit that you don’t know everything and be open to new points of view.” Greg also
recognized the importance of this type of contact. He reflected, “My evolution was
brought about by understanding and demythologizing what I thought about gays and
lesbians. . .it happened as I got to know my son’s fiiends and met gay people at different
events. Not only did it dissolve my fear, but the gay people I have met are some of the
most wonderful people I know.” Alex, who had struggled to overcome his homophobia
in relation to suspecting that his son was gay, said that the exposure to gays and lesbians
was a “powerful tool in helping me get rid of the last bits of my homophobia.” Susan has
also welcomed the opportunity to experience aspects of gay culture. She said, “It’s an
added dimension. We have gone down a lot of different paths and met a lot of people
that we might not have met if Todd hadn’t been gay. It would be pretty boring to only
know one type of person.”
Theme: Activism

Most of the parents said that exposure to and conversations with gays and lesbians
had increased their understanding of the different struggles facing these individuals.
Their increased awareness of these issues along with their concern for their sons’ quality
of life advanced their desire to become involved in activism. The parents’ activism took
on different forms. Yet every parent communicated that they had been committed to
furthering societal awareness about the negative implications of homophobia. All of the
parents reported contributing financially to various organizations whose missions were to

effect societal change and improve the quality of life for gays and lesbians. Many of the

99

parents talked about their experiences with public speaking. Many of them have spoken
at different gay events. Many have also spoken at colleges and universities, usually in
classes for people entering counseling and other helping professions. There were five
parents who said that they had written to different political figures or had written
editorials in support of various gay issues that were published in local newspapers.

Kate talked about her quiet form of activism, “I don’t like to get up in front of
people and talk, but I feel like I can be an activist by simply helping other parents who
are struggling with the issue.” The satisfaction of “giving back to others” was something
that other parents talked about as well. They felt that it was important to impart
knowledge and engage in a reciprocal process of learning and informing others.

Finally, several parents talked about the empowerment they felt when they
attended different gay pride events. Helen, who had talked about her early struggle
“feeling like death” evolved into one of the most activist parents in this group. She said,
“I can’t tell you how liberating it was to finally be able to attend a public event and think
‘Look at me. I am the parent of gay sons and I’m proud. Let me teach you something
about this.’ It was when I could do this that I realized how far I had come.” Winnie also
spoke of feeling empowered when she and her husband Greg attended a gay pride march
in Washington, DC. She remembered, “It was wild. . .quite something really. There were
people from all over, both gay and straight. It’s something you can’t describe. . .a feeling
of pride. . .but something even more than that.”

Code: Present Experience
The parents in this study reflected in their stories that coming out as parents of

gay sons had been an ongoing process for them. Their stories began with somewhat

100

 

prescient feelings that their sons might be gay or that they were at least “different” and
continued to more recent times. There was one prevailing theme as the parents talked
about their present perspectives on the coming out process. Most of the parents describe
working through the process to the point that they hardly think about their sons in terms
of them being gay, but rather think of their other attributes. The primary theme that

emerged has been labeled Non-Issue, which is how one of the parents described their

present experience.
Theme: Non-Jssue

When the parents spoke in regard to their sons’ gay identities being a “non-issue”
they were talking specifically about the evolution they had experienced since the time
following their sons’ disclosures. Many of the parents had talked about how the subject
of their sons being gay had consumed their thoughts and conversations for a long time in
the early years following disclosure but how they had worked through the issue to a point
where they were completely comfortable with it and that they hardly ever thought about it
anymore. This is not to say that they have not remained involved in various levels of
activism or that their interest in or awareness of gay issues has decreased, but rather that
it is not a preoccupation with regards to their sons. Susan’s statement, “Over time we just
don’t really think about the fact that he is gay a lot. It’s just so much a part of him and it
has become ingrained in us. The fact that he is gay doesn’t even come up that much
anymore unless there is some specific gay issue in the news or something like that.”
reflected many of the other parents’ current thoughts about their sons being gay.

Ecosystemic Influences on Parents’ Coming Out Processes

Human ecology theory provided the framework that underlies this project as a

101

whole. Each of the previous classes of data included aspects of human ecology in that
human beings are in constant interaction with their environments and these interactions
were likely to effect their definitions of acceptance, their relationships with their sons,
and their coming out stories. This class of data relates specifically to the systems parents
talked about directly in relation to their perception of influence on their acceptance.
Also, this class explored the reciprocal influence these parents had on various systems.
The final research question was: How do parents describe the impact of their ecosystemic
environments on their ability to be accepting and affirming toward their sons ’ gay
identities? Further, how do the parents describe their impact as accepting parents on
these systems? The system of societal homophobia was also explored as to the level that
the parents perceived it as impacting their acceptance. Primary systems that were
mentioned by parents were used for the coding process and themes were derived fi'om the
parents’ collective experiences in these systems. These codes included: Nuclear Family,
Extended Family, Religion, Occupations Outside the Home, Social/Recreation and
Impact of Societal Homophobia.
Code: Nuclear Family

There has been very little written about the process by which families as a whole
experience the coming out of a family member. Twelve of the parents in this study
indicated that there was not any disruption in their nuclear family functioning following
the disclosure. Helen and Bill experienced severe marital strain for approximately a year
following their son's disclosure and entered individual and marital counseling. Kate was
not married to her son's father at the time of disclosure but states that they were able to

talk about the issue in a positive way. None of the parents reported negative reactions

102

—"' 'u.—-J_—wL—m . 1
l .r

from their other children or their children's spouses. There appeared to be reciprocal
processes in the nuclear family systems as a whole that influenced acceptance for the
individuals and the families as a whole. The two primary themes that were evident under
this code were:

1) Support

2) Balanced Autonomy and Connectedness
Theme: Support

The parents overwhelmingly experienced their nuclear family as a source of

E“..__.,._...,[

support. Winnie talked about how she had experienced extreme sadness, "I probably
cried every day for the first few months. I used to worry that Greg would be sick of
seeing me with mascara smeared all over my face, but you know he never told me to 'get
over it' or anything like that. He was always there." Many of the parents talked about
their spouses being a strong source of support. The spouses were largely able to talk
through their feelings with one another and offer helpfirl insight. Theresa said that she
and her husband (now deceased) "only had each other and our family to lean on for a
long time. It honestly felt like we were the only ones in the world who had ever gone
through this."

Winnie said that after a while she felt like she was wallowing in self-pity and that
she appreciated her daughter's more "matter-of- fact" attitude, "Well mom, what's the big
deal?" Kate said that her daughter approached the issue with similar nonchalance,
"Yeah? Duh. I mean does it really matter, like would we love him any less?" These
daughters also offered that "if you ever need to talk, just call." Helen, who struggled very

much in the beginning, said that her daughter had been very supportive of her brother

103

being gay "from day one." She remembers her daughter telling her, "Mom, you need to
deal with this and understand that it is not the end of the world. Chris is still Chris. It's
not like he died or something. I think you can get through this."

Amelia expressed gratefulness that her older son had encouraged his brother to
come out to them, "Even though I know in my heart I could never turn my back on him, it
must have been scary for him to think about telling us. I'm glad Josh took a stand and
said he wouldn't cover for him anymore and helped him feel safe about telling us."
Natalie talked about the fact that her son had been very adamant about wanting to tell his
thirteen-year old brother, "He felt it was important in case he was struggling with the
issue himself or if he knew other kids who were. He believed kids needed to be aware.
We trusted his judgment and it wasn't a big deal to our younger son. I think he was a
little worried about what his fiiends might think at first, but he got over that pretty
quickly and was pretty vocal if he heard any gay bashing."

Susan's daughters had not reacted negatively but she stated, "I wondered if my
one daughter's fiancé would have more of a problem since he was raised in an extremely
strict and conservative background, but you know, he has always treated Todd very well
and he and my daughter were fine with Todd bringing Andy to the wedding." The
families as a whole capably integrated the gay person’s identity into their family
identities.

Theme: Balanced Autonomy and Connectedness

The parents’ representations of their families implied that the members had close

relationships but also broad and sometimes divergent interests. Independence was often

encouraged. Theresa observed, “1 think he probably realized inside that we would be all

104

 

right with him being gay, because we always encouraged the kids ‘to be who you are
going to be’ and not what you think we want you to be.” Similarly, Amelia said, “My
two sons are so different, but that is what has made life interesting. You wouldn’t want
to have your children all the same. . .that would be boring. It is important for people to be
themselves.” Susan also said, “Todd, even since he was little, had very different ideas
about the world than we did, but it was okay. We didn’t expect the kids to be exactly like
us.”

Many of the parents stated that their children had gone on to pursue their own
interests. Many of them had children who lived some distance away. The descriptions of
the relationships did not imply that the children were moving away to “escape” fi'om the
confines of dominating parents. Instead, they were moving away to pursue their life
interests. The parents all reported positive relationships with both their gay children and
their other children. They kept in regular contact and looked forward to visits.

Code: Extended Family

Family systems theory suggests that what occurs within the nuclear family can be
expected to be influenced by and to influence the extended family system of which it is a
part (Becvar & Becvar, 2003). Not one parent in this sample indicated any long lasting
negative responses from extended family members. Harris said that his sister became
very angry towards him “because I was projecting acceptance. She didn’t think I should
send the message that it was okay. But, my younger brother and his wife were very
open-minded and accepting right away. I guess eventually my sister felt out numbered

because eventually she came around!”

The majority of the parents did not directly state that they viewed their extended

105

families as highly influential on their ability to accept their sons’ gay identities. It is
possible that the parents may have been looking at these relationships in more literal
terms and therefore did not characterize their families as an influence on acceptance
because they were not looking to their families to help them through the actual crisis.
They merely experienced the families as supportive and accepting rather than as
influencing their own acceptance. They may minimize the influence fiom a
psychological and systemic perspective given that they have not been trained to think
systemically. They did not believe that they had influenced their extended families’
acceptance and the task did not require much effort. The following statement by Theresa
generally surmned up the general consensus of the parents as a whole: “Telling our
extended family was part of the coming out process for us. It was a relief when we did it
and not as big of a deal as we thought it would be. Nobody reacted terribly. It was all
fine and the family just went on as always.” It was somewhat difficult to identify specific
themes under this code. All of the parents indicated generally good relationships with
their extended families. Therefore the one theme that was common to all of the parents
was Positive Responses.
Theme: Positive Responses

A majority of the parents came out to their extended family members during the
first year after their sons had disclosed to them. Many of them had aging parents. A few
of the parents stated that they did not come out to their aging parents whose health was
failing because they did not believe it was important at that point. None of those parents
indicated that they did not tell them because they feared their reactions. In fact, they

believed that these parents would have been fairly accepting. One of the parents stated

106

that his father had died prior to his son coming out so it was not an issue. But he believed
that his father would not have been accepting.

Some of the parents expressed surprise at how accepting their families had been
from the beginning. Amelia remembers, “My father was always very outspoken and if he
didn’t like this, we would have heard about it. I think I worried a little bit about his
reaction because he was a generation behind us. He was eighty-nine when we told him

and he said, ‘I always knew that’. He didn’t have a problem with it at all and his support

I“ ”a“!

meant a lot to me.” Natalie said that her mother was deceased when her son came out,
but that she told her father. She stated, “I didn’t know how my father would react. He
was a physician and he was very well read, so I think that helped. His response was very
positive. Actually, I don’t remember any negative experiences. I wasn’t really looking
for support fi'om my family per se, but I appreciated that everybody reacted so
positively.”

Several of the parents talked about the fact that their gay sons had also shared a
particularly close relationship with certain grandparents or favorite aunts or uncles. They
stated that these relationships were sustained and continued to remain close after their
sons came out. Joe said that his mother had been involved with Girl Scouts for years and
always encouraged independent thought. He characterized his mother as “being very
accepting of various types of people in general so it wasn’t surprising that she would be
accepting towards Doug, especially since she loved Doug a lot... She has even helped out
at different events, you know like P-FLAG things and such.” His wife, Caroline stated
“Doug and my mother were very close, so I never doubted that she would accept him.

After I talked to her about Doug, she started to really be aware of gay issues and started

107

reading about different things... She and Doug are still close.” Winnie also stated that
both of her parents were very close to her son. She remembers, “They were wonderful
about it. They sent Brad a beautiful letter telling them that they love and support him
always and that nothing could change that. They also sent me and Gordon a letter telling
us that they were supportive of us and thought that we had done such a good job of
raising Brad and that they loved us all and that this was nothing to be ashamed about.”

There were no reports by parents of any hostile reactions fiom extended family
members, with the exception of the one previously mentioned concerning Harris’ sister.
Several parents viewed the younger generations (contemporaries of their sons) as being
especially accepting. They largely reported fiiendly and accepting interactions at family
events. None of them reported any instances where their sons were not welcome at a
family event.

Code: Religion

Previous literature suggests that adherence to conservative religious beliefs can
often hinder one’s ability to be accepting of gays and lesbians (Bouton et al., 1989; Wylie
& Forest, 1992). Gay and lesbian individuals may also experience internal conflicts
concerning the reconciliation of their religious beliefs with sexual orientation (Schuck &
Liddle, 2001). Sources of this conflict may stem fiom and be exacerbated by
denominational teachings, scriptural passages and congregational prejudice.

There was some indication of this sort of conflict with some of the parents in the
sample. However, none of them indicated that their religious affiliations had negatively
impacted their acceptance of their sons. Rather, they talked about having to “rethink”

some of the churches’ teachings in relation to homosexuality. Five of the parents came

108

 

fi'om very conservative religious backgrounds. However, four of these parents indicated
only minimal struggle reconciling their religious beliefs with their attitudes toward the
sexual orientation of their sons. Three of the parents belonged to churches that were more
moderate in terms of teachings about homosexuality. F our of the parents belonged to
churches that were very liberal in their teachings. None of these parents indicated that
they had struggled to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sons’ gay identities.
Ironically, the two parents who struggled the most with acceptance for their son’s gay
identity stated that they were not affiliated with any church, which contrasts with some
previous research (Kunkel & Temple, 1992).

The parents who belonged to churches that were considered, “conservative” and
“moderate” did not perceive the actual church environment as contributing to their
acceptance. Many of those parents, however, exerted a fair amount of influence on that
environment. The four parents who attended the “liberal” churches indicated that their
churches had a positive influence on their acceptance but did not believe that it was a
primary influence. The following themes emerged in relation to this ecosytem:

1) Ability to Transcend Religious Bias and Dogma
2) Promoting Change
Theme: Ability to Transcend Religious Bias and Dogma

Although several of the parents identified that they had strong religious
backgrounds, they did not believe that this interfered with their abilities to be accepting.
Charles, Susan, Harris, Amelia and Theresa had all belonged to very conservative
churches since childhood and each of them conveyed that the teachings of those churches

held that homosexuality was a sin. They found different ways to address their conflict.

109

Susan stated, “I think Charles and I were able to interpret the teachings in a way that
allowed us to believe that God would not create somebody to be gay if it were a sin. We
do not believe that Todd chose to be gay, we believe he was born that way.” Her
husband gave a similar response but also added, “I have always carefirlly scrutinized the
teachings of the church and I have spent a lot of time examining the bible fiom a
scholarly perspective. I don’t believe that you should just listen to a sermon without
critical examination of what is being said.” Charles also talked about a time that he and

his son attended a speech given by a religious scholar that addressed the issue of ,.

 

homosexuality in the bible. He found it to be “an extremely enlightening and intelligent. H
My son had turned his back on religion and I had been disappointed, so I was happy that
he agreed to attend with me. I think it was a turning point for me in both my relationship
with my son and towards peace with regard to my faith.”

Theresa had tried to elicit support from her minister but experienced him as
unsupportive. She said that she and her husband worked through their religious conflict
and did not “accept that gay people are sinners.” She remembered, “I didn’t get the
feeling that our church with the leadership at the time could see it any other way than that
it was a sin. Afier a while, we became frustrated and disillusioned by the church’s stance
on homosexuality. We stopped going for a while, but that was strange because it had
always been such a big part of our lives. . . finally we found Westminster and that was a
Godsend. . . it is an accepting and affirming church towards gays and lesbians. . . they
have even done commitment ceremonies there.” Kate was also disappointed that her
church “taught only tolerance but not acceptance. I didn’t like the connotation, like we

were supposed to tolerate something bad and just pray for these wayward people or

110

something. That did not go along with my personal beliefs about who God is. I ended up
finding a church that was more enlightened.”

Harris stated, “I was raised in a conservative religious background but I think I
tend to approach religious faith as something personal more than strictly from the
standpoint of church doctrine. I have also had a fair amount of exposure to some more
religious beliefs.” Similarly to Charles he added, “I have spent hours reading the bible
and giving it carefirl thought and analysis. You cannot look at it as black or white. There
is all sorts of room for interpretation and I am comfortable that I have reconciled my own
faith with this issue.”

Theme: Promoting Change

All twelve of the parents who were actively involved with churches indicated that
they had been involved on some level in helping to address the issue of homosexuality in
their congregations through various activities. Charles and Susan both mentioned that
their church had started a monthly program for the purpose of discussing “hot topics”
within society such as abortion and the death penalty. Charles was instrumental in
bringing the issue of homosexuality up as a topic. Eventually, he facilitated a six-week
class about homosexuality and religion at the church. He was eventually invited to
facilitate that same class at another church. Susan stated, “Even though I knew that our
church would not give this their seal of approval by any means, we were fortunate
because we had some standing and respect in the church. Charles is an elder in the
church so a lot of the people in the congregation were willing to listen to what he had to
say.”

Many of the parents sat on panels that were aimed at expanding the churches

lll

 

homes:

about i

their 2
their ‘
abilit'

react:

views on homosexuality. Kate helped to started a support group at her church that was
similar to P-F LAG but was also focused on religious issues. Several of the parents spoke
at churches other than their own in an attempt to encourage firrther thought about
homosexuality within these churches. Greg stated, “J ust getting people to start talking
about it instead of hiding from the issue is a positive starting place for growth to begin.”
Code: Occupations Outside the Home
The parents did not generally view their actual work environments as influencing

their acceptance of their sons’ sexual orientation. However, they often observed that

 

their vocational training and certain work experiences might have been influential in their
ability to be accepting. Several parents stated that they had colleagues at work who
reacted positively towards them but they did not tend to look to these individuals for
support. A few of the parents mentioned specific incidences where they had challenged a
colleague’s view about gays and lesbians. The two primary themes that emerged under
this code were:

1) Professional Training

2) Work Experiences
Theme: Professional Training

Several of the parents identified aspects of their professional training as having

helped them address the issues surrounding their son’s gay identities. Three of the
parents were trained as educators and they believed that their perspectives were shaped
by a desire to learn more. Harris said, “I see myself as an instrument of education about
this subject, much as I was an instrument throughout my teaching career.” Alex stated

“My training and education related to my Ph.D. contributed to an increase in my critical

112

thinking skills. When you are faced with a difficult emotional issue, it is very important
that you can rely on your intellect to sort things out... Of course, I wasn’t pleased by the
thought that my son could be gay. If I would have let my emotional side take over, I

would have not been able to get to the place of acceptance I am today. And of course, as
a philosophy major, I think, ‘we are on this earth what, eighty years or so?’ That’s just a
second in the scheme of things. .. Why should my life be ruined because I can’t get over

some of my own discomfort? Who would I be to NOT be accepting?”

mm «EV
1..

Charles was trained as an attorney. He observed, “I think my professional training
was likely one of the biggest influences on my ability to be accepting in that I was taught
the importance of tolerance of different points of view. When you litigate, you have to be
able to make intelligent arguments. Critical thinking is crucial. I believe that I was able
to come to terms with this through careful analysis, much in the same way I was taught to
analyze the law.”

Two of the mothers were trained as nurses and they believed their backgrounds in
science helped them increase their understanding of human sexuality. Caroline said, “My
training as an RN didn’t take away my surprise that he was gay. It probably helped to
make it not such a mystery, though. Just the fact that I had been trained to understand the
human body and I am comfortable with different issues that have to do with human
sexuality.”

Theme: Work Experiences

Charles, Harris and Joe all engaged in some proactive efforts towards changing

their work environments. Joe brought up the issue of same-sex partner benefits to a

member of upper management. He recalled, "The company I was working for was really

113

in the closet. It’s a pretty big place, so you know there are gays and lesbians working
there. But it was never discussed. They did not offer benefits to the partners of gays or
lesbians and also, for whatever reason, they chose not to include sexual orientation in
their policy about work place discrimination. I had some opportunities to bring it up at
different times and I just kind of hedged. But then one day I thought I needed to stand up
for this because it is wrong that nobody is addressing it. So I did. I gave them a lot of
information about the issue and companies that are doing things and they are actually
looking at it. I mean they didn’t say ‘no way’ or anything like that.”

Harris had retired as a secondary teacher, but he went back to the school at
which he had previously taught and had several conversations with the principal
regarding the formation of a support group at the school for students who might be
struggling with this issue. He said, “I was aware of different kids’ struggles with issues
of sexuality when I was a teacher. I assigned journal writing for my English classes and I
can remember five or six students who alluded to their struggles with their sexuality. I
remember a couple of others who directly wrote about it. I tried to write supportive
comments, but I was still a little scared to really try go in depth with them about it. After
Peter came out I learned so much more about how difficult it can all be for kids. I wanted
to do everything I could to ensure that that these kids who were struggling had some
positive support.” Nancy also stated, “My teaching experience raised my awareness
about the different issues facing gay youth.”

Charles, who was an attorney specializing in civil rights issues, stated “I had an
easier time addressing the issue of gay civil rights with clients because of my personal

evolution. It broadened my analysis of civil rights issues in general.” His firm

“4

‘10s?

represented a school district that was embattled with a gay teacher. He told his partners
that he could not in good conscience be actively involved in the case and they supported
his decision. Charles also sat on several boards in the community in relation to his work
and was influential in advocating for a policy that included same-sex cohabitation at an
assisted care facility.

Kate was a public health nurse and stated that she had a lot of experience working
with gay men who were being tested for HIV. She said, “I think that seeing the fear that
these men experienced made me feel sympathetic. I met a lot of wonderful gay men and
this certainly was not something they ‘deserved’ like a lot of people might think.”
Theresa worked at an art museum whose director was a gay man. She became close to
him and said she learned a lot about the gay community from her interactions with him.
She remembers, “Once when my son came to visit I was able to take him to a new gay
bookstore. It was a bookstore and a coffee house that Dennis had told me about. I think
my son was tickled that I knew about this place. Here is his old mom in this place where
they have these suggestive gay pictures... I must have seemed pretty hip to him!”

Code: Social/Recreation

The parents talked about a wide variety of social and recreational interests such as
travel, tennis, cards and dining out. More relevant to this code, however was the
influence of the friends with whom they shared these activities. In fact, when the parents
discussed this aspect of their ecosystemic environment it was their fiiendship networks
about which they spoke. Therefore, the one primary theme that emerged under this code

was Comfort and Acceptance fiom Friends.

115

Theme: Comfort and Acceptance from Friends

The parents generally chose close fiiends as people to whom they first disclosed
the fact that their sons were gay. Some of the parents chose to confi'ont homophobic
comments fi'om fiiends both for the purposes of coming out and for wanting to preserve
the fiiendship. Winnie remembered an incident where one of her fiiends was complaining
about her rebellious teenage daughter, “She said, ‘Well at least she is not a lesbian.’ I
hadn’t told her about Brad yet, so I decided that I needed to tell her. Well, she felt
horrible about what she said and started crying and got really apologetic. I was glad we
could work through that. I felt like it probably made us closer.” Helen recalled, “Bob’s
[her husband] idea of conring out was to kick me under the table when someone would
make homophobic comments or tell a gay joke or something. He wanted me to confront
them. . .Eventually he got really good at doing it himself!”

Next to their spouses, fiiends were often the people with whom they were most
likely to share their thoughts and feelings about their sons’ gay identities. Kate
remembered that she had been suspecting that her son was gay for some time before he
came out to her. She had a small group of close friends who got together a couple of
times a month and talked extensively about personal issues in each other’s lives. She first
started talking to them about her son two years before he came out. She said, “My
fiiends really helped me work through a lot of my early feelings a long time before Scott
came out. I think that’s why I was able to raise the issue with Scott. . .Then, of course,
they were there for me afterwards.” Helen said, “I don’t know if I would still be here
without the support of my fiiends. It was really rough in the beginning and they were so

wonderful.” Several of the parents made statements to the effect of their close fiiends

ll6

being “very supportive” and that they “didn’t have any trouble accepting the fact that our
son was gay.” Charles said, “I think our friends just took our lead. We were doing fine
with it, so they were able to accept it as well.” None of the parents reported losing any
friends in relation to their sons being gay.

Code: Influence of Societal Homophobia
Central to this study is the idea that homophobia is pervasive throughout the

ecosyterrric environments in which people interact (Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1993). It is
not possible to truly escape from the negative messages and stereotypes about gays and
lesbians that are prevalent throughout society (Bohan, 1996). The level of which
individuals internalize homophobia may vary. The results of internalized homophobia
range from subtle prejudice to fear to loathing to overt acts of violence (Blumenfeld &
Raymond, 1993). The parents in this study did not seem to possess highly homophobic
attitudes or behaviors prior to discovering that their sons were gay. The theme that

emerged under this code was Low Levels of Intemalized Homophobia.

Theme: Low Levels of Internalized Homophobia

The majority of the parents said that they had not really thought a lot about the
issue of homosexuality prior to their sons coming out. Some of the parents talked about
the fact that they didn’t know any gays or lesbians before their sons came out. These
parents usually immediately qualified that statement with “at least we didn’t think we
did” which demonstrated their evolution from a heterosexist belief that “everybody is
straight.” Theresa said, “Prior to that [her son coming out] we never thought, and I mean
thought, that we knew anyone who was gay. Art and I were both raised in a strict

Christian Reformed environment and I think we had heard all the teachings about it being

117

A sin and such, but we were pretty much oblivious to the whole thing.” Being
“oblivious” was a common response fi'om the parents. Caroline said, “To tell you the
truth, I never had really given it much thought. I was really pretty ignorant about it. And
it wasn’t something that I ever thought would affect my life or anyone in my life. I never
really thought I knew anyone who was gay.” Joe also, “really didn’t think about it too
much because I didn’t know anybody. If you would have asked me if I knew anyone, I
would have said ‘No.’ It was just totally blank. As far as that goes, I mean I would never
go out of my way to wonder, ‘Hmmm, I wonder if that guy is gay?”

Some of the parents talked about the fact that they accepted some of the
stereotypes, but did not have strong negative feelings about gays and lesbians. Greg
stated, “I think I always thought it was a choice for the majority of the people and I think
I would laugh at gay jokes or probably say things that were insensitive towards gay
people. I don’t think I did it to be mean. I just didn’t think about it.” Bob stated, “Well
the things people think of when they think of gay people, stereotypical stuff, when you
are not informed otherwise. People who don’t know gay people sometime just go by the
stuff they hear about. Like I would think of things you read on the walls in the restrooms
and people picking up guys at rest stops. Also, getting the idea that all gays were cross-
dressers...”

Alex had talked about having to work through a lot of his own homophobia. He
stated, “I never thought I was homophobic. You know in little ways, like laughing at
jokes or stereotypes, but not an all out fear or hatred. I even knew a guy who was gay and
I thought he was a good guy. But, I think when I thought of my son being gay, that’s

where it really hit me. I had to get past a lot of feelings under there that I hadn’t been

118

aware of.” Helen, who also had a difficult time accepting her son’s gay identity in the
beginning remembered, “I actually only knew one gay guy at that time, or at least one
guy who I knew for a fact was gay and I really liked him. He was very nice but I really
hadn’t given a lot of thought about what his actual life was like. The whole issue was a
‘non-thought’ for me because it didn’t really exist in my life. I didn’t look at it affecting

me at all, until it did.”

119

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

Overview
One of the predominant challenges in qualitative research is managing the data

and deciding what is most relevant to include in the report of results (Gilgun, 1992). This
particular study gave the researcher pause. The parents’ stories were so candid and
poignant that it was difficult to refrain fiorn the temptation to report their stories in their
entirety. At times, the researcher wished that she were writing a book about parents’
coming out stories rather than reporting findings in this more narrow study. She worried
that she was not doing justice to the participants’ experiences. However, as the
researcher revisited the theoretical and conceptual maps, she was able to appreciate the
value of this theory-building endeavor. While the grounded theory approach does not
advocate a detailed description of every case, its value lies in “thick description” of the
data as a whole for the purpose of explicating the intricacies of meaning (Gilgun, 1992).
From these meanings, the journey of theory building can begin. Qualitative analysis of
the parents’ stories allows them to become uniquely relevant and helpful in the pursuit of
strengths models that will promote the integration of gay and lesbian identities into
family identities. This chapter highlights some of the key findings in the data. It also
addresses some of the theoretical, research and clinical implications of this study.
Theoretical Foundations and Implications
The benefits of using qualitative methodology for this study were many. Studies

concerning the perspective of parents of gays and lesbians are substantially limited in all

120

fields of the behavioral sciences. Qualitative research promotes the generation of
theoretical concepts that will be useful as a means to inform clinical assessment and
treatment when working with gays and lesbians and their families (Moon, Dillon &
Sprenkle, 1990). To date, there has been little attempt to place theoretical proposals or
data regarding the strengths of families who successfirlly integrate a member’s gay or
lesbian identity within the fiarnework of existing psychological literature. This study
kept within the goals of a grounded theory approach, which is to generalize the findings
to a theory rather than to a population (N ewfield et al., 1996). This study provides
baseline data that can be used to determine the strengths of accepting families and
promote further research upon which a strengths model can be constructed for the healthy
integration of gay or lesbian identity into the family system.

The participants in this study were asked to discuss issues that were potentially
sensitive or emotional in nature. The use of an ethnographic stance attends to the
sensitive nature of the topic (Laird, 2001). It employs several techniques that are utilized
in the therapeutic setting, thereby creating a safe environment for the participants to
construct their narratives.

The use of qualitative data gathering techniques helped to create a rich picture of
the individual attributes of the parents, their family systems, and the ecosystemic
environments that contributed to the parents’ acceptance of their sons’ gay identities.
This level of description would likely not be captured by a quantitative study. The
natural tendency of people to create stories to make sense of their experiences is
congruent with the goals of this research. Meaning can be construed fiom experiences

once they have been languaged (Laird, 2001). Utilizing stories and ecomaps, as research

121

 

techniques are beneficial in bridging the gap between clinicians and researchers (Harold
et al., 1995). The researcher becomes at once a storyteller and a scientist (F etterrnan,
1989). Developing an understanding of the social contextualization of these stories is
expected to result in useful strategies for intervention with families who are experiencing
similar circumstances. Given that this population is very minimally represented in the
literature, qualitative methodology provides a means to represent their experiences in a
more holistic manner.
Key Findings/Themes
Desire to Continue Positive Relationships

It was abundantly clear that the majority of the parents in this study experienced
significant satisfaction in their relationships with their sons from the time they were
young children through adulthood. Even the two fathers who had a more difficult time
understanding their sons as children said, that they loved and cared for their sons and
were able to form some appreciation of their unique qualities and talents. These parents
were eventually able to work through the fears connected to their perception of their sons
being “different.”

Attachment theory and the concept of a “secure base” (Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall,l978; Bowlby, 1988) may provide a usefirl fi'arnework to explore the
intergenerational dynamics that may contribute both to the children’s ability to disclose to
their gay identities to their parents and their parents’ abilities to accept these identities.
Probing into the intergenerational dynamics from an attachment perspective may clarify
the reasons why the gay sons did not experience immobilizing apprehension in disclosing

to their gay identities to their parents. Indeed, most of the sons, while nervous about the

122

initial disclosure, indicated to their parents that they did not truly fear rejection.
Attachment theory “clearly assumes that supportive and autonomy encouraging parent
child relations seem to be crucial to the child’s experience of the parents (and family) as a
secure base from which to explore the extra-familial world and develop a differentiated
‘voice’” (Lopez, 1995, p.16). Most of these parents projected an acceptance for their
sons’ departure from typical gender related behavior. This likely contributed to the sons’
abilities to navigate their coming out processes. The reciprocal value of the parent-child
relationship became evident in the sons’ desires to be authentic in their relationships with
their parents by disclosing to them and by the parents’ ability to accept their gay
identities.

The majority of the parents spoke specifically about the importance of
maintaining positive relationships with their sons. They said that their desire to remain
close and connected to their sons overrode any of the other emotions associated with their
sons’ disclosures. Helen and Bob, who struggled fiercely for the first year to come to a
place of acceptance, said that it was their love for their son that propelled them to
overcome their fears and the limitations these fears imposed on their abilities to be
accepting. When asked to define what they believed to be the most instrumental
influences on their abilities to be accepting, the parents most frequently cited strong
emotional connections to their sons and the fear of losing those relationships. The
parents commonly said such things as “He is my son. I love him. What else would I do?”
(Winnie) “How could you turn your back on someone you have loved since the moment

you laid eyes on them?” (Theresa)

123

Ability to Utilize Resources

The parents’ abilities to utilize a wide variety of resources appeared to be an
integral part of their ability to reach acceptance (Beeler & DiProva, 1999). Many of the
parents were able to access internal resources such as intelligence and critical thinking
skills to further their facilitative processes. A majority of the parents actively accessed
information in the form of literature or videos to assist their understanding of issues
around homosexuality and family relationships and to demythologize previously held
concepts (Gerstel, Feraios, & Herdt, 1989). These parents were able to identify resources
that could provide support for them. Some of these resources were informal networks of
supportive people from various facets of their systemic environments. These networks
could include family members, colleagues, or fiiends. Often times, the gay sons were
themselves a resource for the parents. They offered both information and emotional
support.

Other networks of support for the parents included highly organized and well-
fimded organizations. Several parents were able to access information fiom national
political groups such as the Human Rights Campaign or the Triangle Foundation. These
groups are actively involved in increasing visibility of gay issues, addressing
discrimination issues and advocating for legislative action aimed at protecting the rights
of gays and lesbians.

All of the parents found P-FLAG to be an essential source of early support in their
coming out processes. Although the parents varied in their amount of ongoing
involvement with this organization, many of them cited P-Flag as being extremely

influential with regard to their ability to reach acceptance. They found it helpfirl to be

124

able to hear the stories of other parents who were having similar experiences. The
parents also talked about being touched by stories of gays and lesbians who were
struggling to gain acceptance with their families of origin. These stories allowed them to
build empathy for their sons’ struggles and also firrthered acceptance.

Impact of Positive Interaction with Gays and Lesbians and Participation in Gay Culture

Without exception, the parents talked about their positive experiences with regard
to the gay and lesbian community. They believed these interactions to be a significant
part of reaching acceptance not only of their sons but of gays and lesbians in general.
Research has shown that greater contact with gays and lesbians increases acceptance by
lessening the fear perpetuated by societal homophobia (Lance, 1992).

At the time Theresa’s son came out, she and her husband were living in Syracuse
for a few months because her husband was teaching a summer seminar. Coincidently and
serendipitously, their suite mates were two gay men, one of whom was teaching a
summer seminar in French literature. Theresa and her husband developed a friendship
with the gay couple and she recalled, “We really hit it off with them. So, that really
opened the door at the same time we found out about Tim. Being with our new fiiends
really opened our eyes about the way we thought about gay people. We were more
focused on the fact that we had sinrilar interests and were interested in education than
thinking about what they did in bed together. We were able to look past all of the
stereotypes and just see them as people just like ourselves, living normal lives just like
we were. It was a good education for us at the most opportune time.”

Participation in gay culture is said to be a crucial part of identity development for

gays and lesbians because they are able to find a place where they can express aspects of

125

 

their gay identities without fear of negative repercussions (Cass, 1979, Troiden, 1988).
Many of the parents talked about the fiiendships they had forged within the gay
community. They placed such a high value on these relationships that it was evident that
these relationships were not only a source of support during their coming out process, but
also provided rewards that were originally unforeseen by the parents. Many parents
talked about the fact that had their sons not been gay, they would have missed the
opportunity to meet many wonderfirl people. Harriet, who perhaps more than any other
parent had struggled to reach acceptance in the beginning, summed up her interview by
saying, “I’ve become such a fan of the gay community, that I feel sorry for parents who
don 't have gay children!”
Ecosystemic Processes Related to Acceptance

The components of Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) Person-Context-Process model were
most evident in this study. There were clearly personal variables that contributed to the
parents’ abilities to accept their sons’ gay identities. In fact, many of the parents often
cited personal qualities when asked what they thought contributed to their ability to be
accepting. They often identified that they were “open-minded,” “did not see things as
black or white,” “ had a natural curiosity and desire to seek knowledge” and that they
“were generally loving and accepting by nature.” Their individual traits were also
powerful mediating variables with regard to the manner in which they approached their
various environments.

The parents in this sample could be described as “moderately differentiated”
individuals (Bowen, 1978). These parents had the capacity to demonstrate expression of

self to their children and also accept their children’s expressions of self. They were able

126

to do this even when the children’s notions of selflrood were a departure from their own.
Additionally, the parents in the sample did not seem to be automatically shaped by the
dominant thoughts and emotions of the people with whom they interacted across their
systemic environments.

These parents were able to extract positive effects from the various systemic
environments in which they were embedded (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). They were also
able to transcend negative messages that existed in these environments through the
utilization of various resources. This was especially evident in the area of religion.
Research has shown that regular church attendance may contribute to higher levels of
homophobia, while lack of church attendance tends to lower levels of homophobia
(Kunkel & Temple, 1992). Many of these parents not only attended church, but also had
been raised in very conservative religious backgrounds. This did not impede their ability
to be accepting. In fact, they found ways to reconcile their religious faith with their
acceptance and turned their spirituality into a resource.

The parents as a whole reported few negative incidences or interactions across
their systemic environments. There were occasional isolated incidents that usually
involved another person making derogatory statements about gays or lesbians in general
and the accompanying discomfort and loyalty issues experienced by the parents. None of
the parents reported severed relationships or negative backlash related to their identities
as parents of gay sons. Their generally positive experiences in their environments likely
increased their ability to reach acceptance and to integrate their identities as the parents of
gay sons. Thus, the personal characteristics of these individuals combined with the

influence of their systemic environments contributed to a process of relational resiliency.

127

Relational Resiliency
The Person-Context—Process model (Bronfenbrenner, 1992) says that it is not
enough to know what aspects of the individual and the immediate environment lead to
desirable outcomes, but also to specify the process through which this takes place.
Walsh’s (1996) concept of relational resiliency illuminates what this process might be.
Resiliency may not only be a quality possessed by individuals (e. g., Cicchetti & i
Garmezy, 1993 ), namely, social competency, problem-solving skills, autonomy,

optimism, and the ability to recruit social support. Resiliency also may be a quality that is

 

embedded in the process of interdependent relationships (Cohler, Stott, & Musick, 1995; L
Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Walsh, 1996). When a family is resilient as a
functional unit, it is able to adapt to and even prosper from crises (Walsh, 1996). Its
members benefit accordingly.

The coming out of a family member as gay creates a crisis that must be navigated
by the individuals separately and by the families as a whole. The family’s ability to
identify and capitalize on appropriate and effective coping skills to adapt to the crisis is
imperative. It was clear that the parents in this study possessed the classic attributes of
individual resilience listed above. These parents possessed both personal and contextual
attributes that enabled them to successfully mitigate stress and not become consumed by
the crises. They found ways to not only to adapt to the situation, but also to grow and
create positive narratives around the crisis (White & Epston, 1990).

The parents in this study all possessed attributes that have been found to influence
resiliency (summarized in Krovetz, 1999; Seligrnan, 1993; Walker & Lee, 1998; Walsh,

1996). The parents in this study all possessed moderate degrees of social competence.

128

They all had established familial and social relationships and were able to recruit positive
responses concerning their coming out processes from these individuals. As mentioned
previously, these parents had the ability to see themselves in control of their emotional
process rather than victims of it. The parents who expressed the most difficulfly dealing
with their son’s disclosure talked about feeling like victims in the beginning but stated
that they did not like feeling that way. Therefore, they utilized therapy as a resource to 1
work through their thoughts and feelings instead of being immobilized by them. All of

the parents took responsibility for their processes and were resourcefirl in seeking help

 

from others. Additionally, these parents were capable of talking constructively about the .:
issues surrounding their sons’ disclosure and their feelings around the issue. They were

open to listening to new points of view and integrating them into their own analysis of the

crises.

The results also indicated that these parents had an overall sense of autonomy and
had developed a stable sense of self. They were able to act in accord with their own set of
values and beliefs rather than being reflexively shaped by homophobia-informed views
that are present in all facets of society. (See also Bowen, 1978, for discussion about
differentiation as an individual and family trait.) Additionally, these parents had a large
degree of influence on the various systems with which they came in contact as they
actively came out as parents of gay children and engaged in advocacy and activism.

Family systems models of resilience view this quality in terms of the process of
interdependent relationships (Cohler, Stott, & Musick, 1995; Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe,
1993; Walsh, 1996). Families are continually changing and being changed by multiple

contexts. These parents in this study, and their families as a whole, were able to increase

129

their resiliency by competently adapting to stressors related to having their sons come out
as gay. Competent adaptation included their ability to utilize existing resources, develop
new strengths, and reorganize relationships to minimize the disruptive impact of crises.
With their sons they were able to envision a positive future and to pursue it together.
Their resiliency as individuals and as functional family units could be said to have
enabled them to create stories of warmth and acceptance rather than stories of disgrace
and despair.
Gender Diflerences

Gender differences in acceptance were not as readily apparent as the researcher
expected. Research has shown people to be less accepting of gays or lesbians if they are
the same sex as the person (Cramer & Roach, 1988). This was only modestly true of the
parents in this study. The men did express some discomfort with the thought of the
sexual act, but the women did not. Caroline had talked about her experiences a group
facilitator in which she was helping fathers more often than mothers. In addition, there
was a hint that that the parents may have constructed their narratives somewhat
differently. In their initial approaches to the process, the men in this study were more apt
than the women to be cerebral. They had an initial tendency to explore literature about
homosexuality and to engage in critical thinking about the various issues. While also
interested in such matters, the mothers initially seemed more influenced by the feelings

involved in nurture.

Research Implications

The present study was a beginning exploration of the phenomenon of parental

130

acceptance of children’s gay identities. The participants in this study provided rich
information about the influence of their personal attributes and ecosystemic influences on
their stories of acceptance. A move towards “pluralism” in family research may provide
even more comprehensive information (Sprenkle, Dillon, & Moon, 1996). Studies
around issues of parental acceptance that utilize both qualitative and quantitative
methodology will strengthen the line of inquiry related to the present study. For example
it may be usefirl to gather empirical data for the purpose of testing hypotheses with regard
to attachment styles in both the parents and gay children to ascertain the relationship
between certain styles of attachment with levels of parental acceptance. Likewise, it
would be beneficial to collect empirical data with regard to differentiation levels in
parents who are both accepting and non-accepting.

This study gathered information on accepting parents only. Research that
gathers similar information about non-accepting parents would be useful for the purpose
of making comparisons of the attributes and ecosystemic influences of these parents
with parents who are accepting. These comparative results would provide further
direction in the development of clinical models aimed at helping families successfully
negotiate this crises. Studying non-accepting parents may yeild information about how
and why people get “stuck.” Studying accepting parents will continue to yield valuable
information about how people get “unstuck.” Future research should look towards
extending what is known about resilient individuals and resilient fimctional units by
exploring these concepts in this new area of individual and family coping.

Clinical Implications

Coming out to family members, as well as keeping one’s gay or lesbian identity a

131

 

secret can be stressful and provoke anxiety for gays and lesbians. The act of coming out
permits the development of narratives around social identity that requires gays and
lesbians to reposition themselves in relation to all of the relevant systems in which they
are embedded. It requires the same of their parents. It would be wise for practitioners to
prepare themselves with accurate knowledge of gay identity developmental stages and
learn how the conring out process can affect family ecology. (See Crosbie-Bumett et al.,
1996.) Similarly, for family members who discover that someone in their family is gay,
the clinician should be prepared to educate the family about typical reactions to
disclosure of homosexual identity and teach them how to mediate conflict that arises
fiom conflicting viewpoints between gay and heterosexual family members (Bernstein,
1990)

It is important for practitioners working with gay and lesbian issues to understand
the unique norms related to the process of developing a gay or lesbian identity and/or the
identity as a parent or family member of a gay or lesbian individual. In doing so,
clinicians may avoid pathologizing what may be normal transitional reactions to this
process. The power of heterosexism and homophobia can greatly impede this process
both for gays and lesbians and their parents (Bepko & Johnson, 2000). This study
examined not only the coming out process, but also highlighted the abilities of these
families to overcome the destructive messages disseminated in all areas of the systemic
environment. In the past, clinical definitions of homosexuality were centered around
pathology. Treatment objectives with gay and lesbian individuals were to find “causes”
and affect “cures.” The information gathered in this study can be of assistance in the

development of a more positive, strengths-based, resources model. Knowing about the

132

 

ways in which parents utilize various systems in order to cope, and what impediments in
their ecosystemic environments present limitations, will assist in the development of
treatment models that appreciate and capitalize on these strengths. In addition, by
understanding the process of identity development for parents of gays and lesbians,
therapists will be able to use this information when working with gay and lesbian
individuals. Therapists will be able to concurrently represent in a fair manner the L

positions of all the stakeholders. This has been termed “rnulti-lateral partiality” by family

 

therapists who appreciate the importance of equity in family and therapeutic relationships

(Goldenthal,l993). I
F arnily therapists are encouraged to appreciate reciprocity in relationships. The

interface of the gay or lesbian child’s coming out process with his or her parent’s coming

out process is a multi-level venture that is linked to the systemic environment

surrounding each person. It could be easy for a therapist to “side” with the gay or lesbian

individual whose parents are reacting “negatively” instead of helping the child to

appreciate the process of the parents. Conversely, therapists could potentially be

“inducted” into the perspective that the child has “done something tenible” to the parent

and that the parent is suffering. It is anticipated that the data gathered in this study will

be helpfirl in addressing the needs of the entire family system fi'om the perspective that

people are capable of creating narratives around success.
Clinicians can benefit from appreciating how the qualities associated with

individual and family resilience are relevant to this population of families. Evaluation of

coping resources could lead either to a sense of optimism or a treatment strategy focused

on developing such individual and family traits. From this study we suspect that families

133

will do well to the extent that they can:

V Maintain warm, cohesive, and nurturing family ties
Experience themselves as active agents in the face of novel circumstances
Review their past with an eye to appreciating adaptive successes

Revision positive images of the present and future

'\ '\ '\ '\

Identify and be able to use social and community resources

Limitations
A potential weakness of qualitative studies is external validity, namely, the
inability to generalize to the population (N ewfield et al., 1996). That concern may be
raised here. External validity is made even more difficult with regard to the experiences
of families with gay sons because many parents might not be aware that their sons are
gay. In the present study, the trustworthiness of the findings may suffer because there
was not substantial diversity in terms of demographic characteristics of the chosen
sample. The researcher limited the sample to a small geographic area surrounding Grand
Rapids, Michigan. The experiences of accepting parents from other geographic regions
may differ fi'om the selected sample. This sample was predominantly white and middle
class which prohibited assessment of cultural and socioeconomic differences that might
be present in parents’ narratives. Also, the age range of the parents was relatively
narrow. Perhaps inclusion of parents from a generation before or after might have
yielded insight about the effects of generational influences on the narratives of the
parents.
Additionally, this research focused only on accepting parents. A study that

utilizes a quantitative comparative analysis between groups of accepting and non-

134

 

accepting parents may be more informative. Also, the majority of these parents were
very accepting from the beginning. It might be more informative to sample more parents
such as Helen and Bob, who indicated a longer period of resistance in the beginning and
experienced a longer process in coming to terms with their sons’ gay identities. Those
stories may highlight the ability to overtly overcome homophobia.

The decision to limit this study to parents of gay sons was made because this was
the sample that was available. Parents of lesbians might story their experiences
differently. It should not be assumed that the stories of parents of lesbian individuals
would mirror those of the parents of children who are gay.

Another limitation inherent in qualitative studies is the inability of the researcher
to draw conclusions concerning causation. The researcher was not able to identify
qualities or attributes that actually determine parental acceptance or rejection. The
research could, however, identify variables likely to be associated with desirable
outcomes. Given the value of such information, if confirmed with other samples,
“causality” diminishes in practical importance. Clinical practice will benefit to the extent
that clinicians recognize the necessary and sufficient conditions associated with desirable
events.

All participants in this study had some affiliation with P-FLAG at some point
during their coming out process. This may have influenced how they came to describe
themselves as accepting parents. There is not necessarily an apparent bias emerging from
their stories based on this fact, but it may be useful to compare the stories between
parents who utilized this resource with those who did not.

Finally, a longitudinal study may be the optimal method for studying this

135

 

population. The use of a longitudinal approach would allow the researcher to track
changes in attitude over time and circumstance. When parents are asked to recall
retrospective events, they may remember early reactions, attitudes, and feelings as more
congruent with their present experience (F estinger, 1957; Loftus, 1993).
Conclusion

Contemporary theorists concerned with farme processes (e.g., Walsh, 1982) and
family therapy (e.g., Walter & Peller, 1992) have decried deficit models in research and
therapy. Instead of focusing on those who are unable to cope, and the maladaptive things
they ostensibly do, researchers and clinicians would be advised to study “normal”
families and situations in which “things go right.” Such approaches make possible
prevention programs, on the one hand, and resource-oriented, self-esteem boosting
treatment processes on the other. The families in this present study provided a rich and
promising first step in this direction for an under-studied population, namely, families

with homosexual children.

136

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Altheide, D.L. (1987). Reflections. Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative
Sociology,10, 75-77.

Anderson, H., & Goolishian, HA. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems:
Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family
Process, 27, 371-393.

Andrews M.P, Bubolz M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1980). An ecological approach to
the study of the family. Marriage and Family Review, 3,29-49.

Becvar, D. S. , & Becvar, RI. (2003) Family therapy: A systemic integration (5th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Beeler, J. & DiProva, V. (1999). Family adjustment following disclosure of

homosexuality by a family member. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 25, 443-
459.

Ben Ari (1995). The discovery that an offspring is gay: Parents’, gay men’s, and
lesbians’ perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 89-112.

Benkov, L. (1994). Reinventing the family: The emerging story of lesbian and
gay parents. New York: Crown.

Bepko, C. & Johnson, T. (2000). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy:
Perspectives for the contemporary therapist. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy,
26, 409-420.

Bernstein, B (1990). Attitudes and issues of parents of gay men and lesbians and
implications for therapy. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, I, 37-53.

Blumenfeld, W. & Raymond, D. (1993). Looking at Gay and Lesbian Life
(2d ed.). Boston: Beacon.

Bohan, J. (1996). Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. New
York: Routledge.

Boon, S. & Miller, J. (1999). Exploring links between interpersonal trust and the
reasons underlying gay and bisexual males disclosure of their sexual orientation to their
mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 45-68.

137

Borden, W. (1992). Narrative perspectives in psychosocial intervention following
adverse live events. Social Work, 37, 135-141.

Boss P., Dahl, C., & Kaplan, L. (1996). The use of phenomenology for family
therapy research: The search for meaning. In D.H. Sprenkle & S.M. Moon (Eds)
Research methods in family therapy (pp. 83-106). New York: Guilford Press.

Bouton, R.A., P.E., Gallagher, Garlinghouse, P.A., & Leal, T. (1989).
Demographic variables associated with fear of AIDS and homophobia Journal of
Applied SocialPsychology, 19, 885-901.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York: Aronson.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-child Attachments and Healthy
Human Development. New York: Basic Books

Boxer, A.M. & Cohler, B.J. (1989). The life course of gay and lesbian youth: An
immodest proposal for the study of lives. Journal of Homosexuality, 1 7, 315-351.

Boxer, Cook, & Herdt (1991 ). Double jeopardy: Identity transitions and parent-
child relations among gay and lesbian youth. In K.A. Pillerner & K. McCartney, (Eds)
Parent-child relations throughout life (pp.59-92).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Bozett, F.W., & Sussman, MB. (1989). Homosexuality and family relations:
views and research issues. Marriage and Family Review, 14 (3-4), 1-8.

Bristor, M. (1990). Individuals, families and environments. Dubuque: Kendall
Hunt.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed), Six
theories of child development (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd.

Bubolz, M. & Sontag, M. (eds.) (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, W.
Doherty, R. La Rossa, W. Schumm, and S. Steinmetz, Sourcebook of Family Theories
and methods: A Contextual Approach (pp.4l9-448). New York: Plenum Press.

Cain, R. (1991). Stigma management and gay identity development. Social
Work,36. 67-73.

138

 

Cass, V.C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.
Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.

Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of definition.
Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 105-126.
The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 143-167.

Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Propsects and promises in the study of
resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 497-502.

Cohler, B. J., Stott, F. M., & MusickJ. S. (1995). Adversity, vulnerability, and
resilience: Cultural and developmental perspectives. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds),
Developmental pathology, Vol. 2: Risk. disorder, and adaptation (pp. 753-800). New
York: Wiley and Sons.

Coleman (1982). Developmental stages in the coming out process. In J .C.
Gonsiorek (Ed.), A guide to psychotherapywith gay and lesbian clients (pp.31-34). New
York: Hayworth.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons,
and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

Cramer, D.W., & Roach, A.J. (1988). Coming out to mom and dad: A study of
gay males and their relationships with their parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 15 (3-4),
79-91.

Crocker J. & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-
protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crosbie-Bumett, M., Foster, T., Murray, C.I., & Bowen, G.L. (1996). Gays and
lebians families of origin: A social-cogrritive-behavioral model of adjustment. Family
Relations, 45, 397-403.

Daly, K. (1992). The fit between qualitative research and characteristics of
families. In J. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.) Qualitative methods in family

research (pp.3-l l). Newbury Park: Sage.

D’Augelli, AR. (2001). Mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual
youths ages 14 to 21. Clinical Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 7,433-456.

DeVine, J. (1984). A systemic inspection of affectional preference orientation
and the family of origin. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 2, 9-17.

Durby, D. D. (1994). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Gay and
Lesbian Social Services, 1, 1-37.

139

 

Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517-528.

Eliason, M., & Raheim, S. (1996). Categorical measurement of attitudes about
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 4 (3),
51-65.

Elizur, Y., & Minuchin S. (1989) Institutionalizing Madness: Families, Therapy
and Society. Basic Books: New York

Elizur, Y. and Ziv, M. (2001). F arnily support and acceptance, gay male identity
formation and psychological adjustment: A path model. Family Process, 40, 125-
144.

Fairchild, B. & Hayward, N. (1989). Now that you know: What every parent
should know about homosexuality. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Trade Publishers.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Fetterman, D.M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Fomstein, M. (1988). Homophobia: An overview. Psychiatric Annals, 18,
33-36.

Frable, D.E.S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigma and positive
self-perceptions: Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 909-922.

Gergen, KJ. (1985). The social constructivist movement in modern psychology.
American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.

Gergen, K. & Gergen, M. (1988). Narratives of the self. In T.R Sarbin and KB.
Scheibe (Eds), Studies in Social Identity (pp 254-273). New York: Praiger.

Gerhart, D.R., Ratliff, D.A., & Randall, LR. (2001). Qualitative research in
family therapy: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 27,_261-274.

Gerstel, Feraios, & Herdt. (1989). Widening circles: An ethnographic profile of
youth groups. Journal of Homosexuality, 17.75-92.

Gilgun, J. (1992). Definitions, methodologies and methods in qualitative family

research. In Gilgun, J ., Daly, K., & Handel, G. (Eds), Qualitative methods in family
research (pp.22-39). Newbury Park: Sage.

140

 

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:
Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity.
Englewood Clififs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Goldenthal, P. (1993). Contextual Family Therapy: Assessment and Intervention
Procedures. Sarasota, Florida: Professional Resource Press.

Goldfiied, M.R. & Goldfiied, AP. (2001). The importance of parental support in
the lives of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Psychotherapy in Practice, 5 7,681-
693. EL

Gonsiorek, J.C. & Rudolph, J .R. (1991). Homosexual identity: Coming out and
other developmental events. In J.C. Gonsiorek & J.D. Weinrich (Eds), Homosexuality
(pp. 161-176). Newbury Park: Sage. u

 

Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. Guba (Ed). The
Paradigm Dialogue (pp.17-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Harnmersmith, SK. (1987). A sociological approach to counseling homosexual
clients and their families. Journal of Homosexuality, I 4 (1-2), 173-190.

Harold, R.D., Palmiter, M.L., Lynch, S.A., & Freedman-Doan, CR. (1995). Life
stories: A practice based research technique. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,
22, 22-44.

Harold, R., Mercier, L., & Colarossi, L. (1997). Eco maps: A tool to bridge the
practice-research gap. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 24 (4), 29-44.

Herek, GM. (1995). Psychological heterosexism in the United States. In A.R.
D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan
(pp.320-346). New York: Oxford University Press

Hetrick, E. S. & Martin, AD. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution
for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 25-41.

Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York: Norton

Kohn, M. (1992). Factors affecting the coming out process for lesbians. Journal
of Homosexuality, 21 (3), 47-70.

Krovatz, M. L. (1999). Fostering resilience: Expecting all students to use their
minds and hearts well. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.

141

Kunkel, L.E., & Temple, LL. (1992). Attitudes toward AIDS and homosexuals:
gender, marital status and religion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22,
1030-1040.

Kurdek, LA. (1988.) Perceived social support in gays and lesbians in
cohabitating relationships. Journal of Perspectives in Social Psychology, 54, 504-509.

Kurdek, L. & Schmitt, J .P. (1987). Perceived emotional support fiom family and
friends in members of homosexual, married, and heterosexual cohabitating couples.
Journal of Homosexuality, 12 (2), 85-99.

Laird, J. (2001). Theorizing culture: Narrative ideas and practice principles.
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 11, 99-1 14.

Lance, L.M. (1992). Changes in homophobic views as related to interaction with
gay persons: a study in the reduction of tensions. International Journal of Group
Tensions, 22, 291-299.

LaSala, MC. (2000). Lesbians, gay men, and their parents: Family therapy for
the coming-out crisis. Family Process. 39, 67-81.

LaSala, MC. (2000). Gay male couples: The importance of coming out and
being out to parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 47-71.

Levy, E. (1989). Lesbian motherhood: Identity and social support. Afi'ilia, 4(4),
40-53.

Lewis, L. (1985). The coming out process for lesbians: Integrating a stable
identity. Social Work. 29, 464-469.

Lincoln, Y.S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-289..

Loftus, ER (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 8,
518-537.

Lopez, F. G. (1995). Attachment theory as an integrative fi'amework for farme
counseling. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,
3,11-17.

Mallon, GP. (1992). Gay and no place to go: Assessing the needs of gay and
lesbian adolescents in out-of home care settings. Child Welfare, 7], 547-556.

Martin, HP. (1991). The coming out process for homosexuals. Hospital and
Community-Psychiatry. 42, 158-162.

142

Marshall, C. & Rosman, GB. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Massey, R. (1986). What/who is the family system? American Journal of Family
Therapy, 14, 23-39.

Melroy, J .M. (1994). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by
doing. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Minuchin, S & F ishrnan, BC. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press

Moon, S.M., Dillon, D.R., & Sprenkle, DH. (2000). Family therapy and
qualitative research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 357-373.

Moules, NJ. (2000). Post-modenrism and the sacred. Reclaiming connection in
our greater-than-human worlds. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 229-240.

Murphy, BC. (1989). Lesbians and their parents: The effects of perceived
paternal attitudes on the couple. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 46-51.

Newfield, N., Sells, S.P., Smith, T.E., Newfield, S., & Newfield, F. (1996).
Ethnographic research methods: Creating a clinical science of the humanities. In D.H.
Sprenkle & S.M. Moon (Eds) Research methods in family therapy (25-63). New York
Guilford Press.

Newman, B.S. & Muzzonigro, PG. (1993). The effects of traditional family
values on the coming out process of gay adolescents. Adolescence, 28, 213-226.

Nyberg, K.L. & Alston, J .P. (1976). Analysis of public attitudes toward
homosexual behavior. Journal of Homosexuality, 2, 99-107.

Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and family
ritual. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1 7, 349-368.

Proctor, C. D. & Groze, UK. (1994). Risk factors for suicide among gay, lesbian
and bisexual youths. Social Work. 39, 504-513.

Reay, D. (1996). Dealing with difficult differences: Reflexivity and social class
in feminist research. Feminism and Psychology, 6, 443-456.

Remafedi, G. (1987). Adolescent homosexuality: psychosocial and medical
implications. Pediatrics, 79, 331-337.

143

Reynolds, PD. (1971). A Primer in Theory Construction. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Robinson, B.E., Walters, L.H., & Skeen, P. (1989). Response of parents to
learning that theirchild is homosexual and concern over AIDS: A national study.
Journal of Homosexuality, 18 (1-2), 59-80.

Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the socials sciences. Princeton NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Savin-Williams, RC. (1989). Parental influences on the self-esteem of gay and
lesbian youths: a reflected appraisals model. Journal of Homosexuality, 1 7 (1), 93-109. ,. .

Savin-Williams, R.C., & Dube, EM. ( 1998). Parental reactions to their child’s
disclosure of a gay/lesiban identity. Family Relations, 47, 7-13.

 

Schnitzer, P. (1993). Tales of the absent father: Applying the “story” metaphor
in family therapy. Family Process, 32, 441-458.

Schuck, K.D. & Liddle, B.J. (2001). Religious conflicts experienced by lesbian,
gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5, 63-82.

Seligman, M. (1996). The optimistic child: A proven program to safeguard
children against depression and build lifelong resilience. New York: HarperPerennial.

Shallenberger, D. (1996). Reclaiming the spirit: The journeys of gay men and
lesbian women towards integration. Qualitative Sociology, 19,195-215.

Silverman, D. (1998). The quality of qualitative health research: The open-ended
interview and its alternatives. Social Sciences in Health, 4, 104-118.

Slater, S. (1994). Approaching and avoiding work in the middle years: Affairs in
committed lesbian relationships. Woman and Therapy, 15, 19-34

Sprenlde, D.H. & Moon, SM. (1996). Toward pluralism in family therapy
research. In D.H. Sprenkle & S.M. Moon (Eds), Research Methods in Family Therapy
(pp. 3-19). New York: Guilford Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stronrrnen, ER (1989). “You’re what?”: Family members’ reactions to the
disclosure of homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 35-78.

Sword, W. (1999). Accounting for presence of self: Reflection on doing
qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 270-278.

144

Tomm, K. (1984). One perspective on the Milan Systemic approaches: Part 1.
Overview of development, theory, and practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
10, 113-125.

Troiden, R. R. (1988). Gay and lesbian identity, New York: General Hall Inc.

Waldner, L. K. & Magruder, B. (1999). Coming out to parents: perceptions of
family resources and identity expression as predictors of identity disclosure for gay and
lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 37 (2), 83-100.

Walker, J. P., & Lee, R. E. (1998). Uncovering strengths of children of alcoholic

parents. Contemporary Family Therapy, 20, 521-538. If“
Walker, G. (1991). In the midst of winter: Systemic therapy with families, A
couples, and individuals with AIDS infection. New York: Norton.

Walter, J. L., & Peller, J. E. (1992). Becoming solution-focused in brief therapy.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Walsh, F. (1982). Conceptualizations of normal family fimctioning. In F. Walsh
(Ed), Normal family processes (pp. 3-42). New York: Guilford.

White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New
York: Norton.

Woods, J .D. (1993). The Corporate Closet: The Professional Lives of Gay Men
in America. New York: The Free Press.

Wylie, L. & Forest, J. (1992). Religious fimdamentalism, right-wing
authoritarianism and prejudice. Psychological Reports, 71, 1291-1298.

145

Appendix A: Sample Letter to Participants

Date:

Dear (Name of PotentialResearchParticipant):

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Michelle Crooks-Yared. I am a doctoral
candidate in the Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University. I
am currently working on my dissertation titled, Systemic Influences of Acceptinggnfi
S_upportive Parents of Gay Sons: Towardsfia Strenng Model. I am at the data collection
stage of this project. I received your name after contacting (name withheld) at P-FLAG. I
am writing to you to inquire about your interest in participating in this project.

 

The above project is a qualitative study of parents who are accepting and supportive of
their sons’ gay identity. Involvement in this study would require you to participate in an
interview in which you are asked open-ended questions concerning your perspectives
with regards to your ability to be accepting and supportive of your son’s gay identity.
You will also be asked to tell the story, in your own words, about your discovery of your
sons’ gay identity and your experience and process of becoming accepting and supportive
of that. In addition, you will be asked to talk about the different environments in which
you interact and the influence of those environments on your acceptance. This will take
approximately 1 '/2 to 2 hours of your time. Your identity will remain confidential in all
written reports of information obtained in this study.

If you are interested in participating in this study, please complete the enclosed
demographic form. Additionally, please mark the appropriate box indicating your level
of acceptance for your son’s gay identity. It is anticipated that twenty parents will be
needed for this study. Participants will be contacted as forms are returned. It is possible
that saturation of data may occur prior to twenty interviews therefore all potential
research participants may not be contacted for actual participation in this study. I would
like to thank you in advance for your initial interest and willingness to participate should
you not be contacted for the study.

Sincerely,

Michelle M. Crooks-Yared

146

Appendix B: Initial Interest to Participate in Study/Demographic Form

Thank you for your initial interest in this project and your willingness to fill out
this demographic information form. Please fill the form out and mail it back to
me in the self-addressed envelope provided at your earliest convenience. I will
begin contacting individuals as the forms are returned.

Name:

 

Address:

 

 

Phone:

 

Age:

 

Occupation:

 

Length of Time
Since Son Came Out:

 

Son’s Age

 

Please check the appropriate blank indicating your level of acceptance for
your son’s gay identity:

__Veo/ Accepting
__Moderately Accepting
__Somewhat Accepting
Please sign below indicating your permission to be contacted by phone for

participation in this study.

 

Signature

 

 

147

Appendix C: Systemic Influences on Accepting and Supportive
Parents of Gay Sons: Towards a Strengths Model

You are being invited to participate in a study about the attributes and systemic
influences of parents who are accepting and supportive of their sons’ gay identity. We are
asking you to share information about being the parent of a gay son. We hope to learn
about which systemic environments you perceive/d as being the most influential in your
personal journey of acceptance. We are also interested in discovering your personal
stories concerning your experience of discovering that your son was gay and learning
about how you have created a narrative of acceptance of your son’s gay identity. It is
anticipated that as we learn more about your successfirl negotiation of the coming out
process as “the parent of a gay son,” we will be able to create better treatment models to
assist parents who are struggling with this process. You will be asked to share your story
through an interactive interview, which will include guided questions, sharing of your
personal story concerning the coming out process, and the completion of an ecomap.
These interviews are expected to take approximately and hour and a half.

0 Your participation is voluntary and without force and can be withdrawn at any
time. You can refuse to answer any question or share information.

o All information obtained in the interviews will be kept confidential and any
written reports relating to these stories will not use names or other identifying
data. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

0 Questions for the researcher can by asked at any time during the process.
Additional questions about the study can be addressed to Michelle Crooks-Yared
at (616-336-7 740) or wedchDmsuedu. If you have questions or concerns about
your rights as a research participant or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect
of this study, you may contact-anonymously if you wish- Ashmir Kurnar, M.D.
Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihsmsuedu, or regular mail:
202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824

0 A11 interviews will be taped and all tapes will be erased after the dissertation is
complete. Only the researcher will retain the transcripts of the interviews.

I have read the above and voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature of Research Participant Date

148

 

Appendix D: Semi-structured Interview Guide

How do you define yourself as “accepting” and “supportive” of your son’s gay
identity?
Potential Prompts
Do you talk openly about having a gay son to others?
Do you discuss gay issues with your son or others?
In what ways do you express your support for your son’s gay identity?
Are you supportive of your son’s same-sex relationships? In what ways?

How would you describe your relationship with your son prior to the time he
came out to you as gay through the present time?

What are some specific memories you have about your son as a child?
On a continuum of easy to difficult, how would you rate your overall
experience in raising this child?

0 What is your relationship like now?

I would like you to tell me about your own coming out process in regards to being
the parent of a gay son. I would like you to create a story in your own words that
appreciates your own experience of this process in a way that makes sense to you.
The story should start with your early process and address your evolution towards
acceptance and progress to the present time. I will loosely guide this process at
times with questions or prompts to help facilitate your narrative. We will also
complete an ecomap together for the purpose of exploring the influence of various
environments on your process.

Potential Prompts

How/when did you find out that your son was gay?

Were you surprised or had you ever suspected? Why?

Prior attitudes about gays and lesbians?

Initial reaction to this news?

Tell me about the evolution of your feelings from the time of disclosure to the

present? What was the most difficult aspect of this disclosure for you?

0 What was your relationship like with your child during the initial disclosure
and how has it evolved since that time to the present?

0 How often did they discuss issues related to son’s gay identity? In what
context did these discussions occur? What types of things were discussed?
What was the general tenor of these conversations?

a Specific times or experiences that relate to coming to terms with son’s gay
identity?

0 Most difficult aspects of this process?

COMPLETION OF ECOMAP: Several circles will be displayed and labeled with

the following systems: Work, Religion, Recreation, Nuclear Family, and Extended

149

Family. There will be several blank circles that may be labeled with specific
environments relevant to individual parents. The parents will be asked to look at
each environment and describe the following:

Their level of involvement in each environment.

The level of openness concerning their son’s gay identity they exhibit in each
environment. Which systems were/are easier to be open with concerning their
son’s gay identity. Which are more difficult? Why?

0 The level of support they received in each environment. What kind of support
they received. Who did the support come from? Which was the most positive
environment/s?

0 Any negative experiences in any environments? What were the experiences?
How did they deal with these negative experiences? Which was the most
negative environment/s?

What were the primary issues that were addressed in each environment?
Did your perception of support or lack of support change over time in any of
these environments?

4. As you reflect on this entire experience from the time you found out that your son
was gay until the present, what would you describe as the biggest influence/s on your
ability to be accepting of your son’s gay identity? Many people struggle to achieve
acceptance. Why do you believe you are able to be accepting and supportive of your
son’s gay identity?

150

Appendix E: Contact Summary Form:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Illustration )
Contact type: Participant:
Visit Contact date:
Phone Today’s date:
1. @ issues or themes that were present in this contact
2. Pertinent information from egch ta_rget question for this contact

 

 

 

0 Parental Definition of Acceptance

o Parent’s Relationship with their Child Across Time

a Parent’s Story of the Conring Out Process

0 Ecosystemic Influences on Parental Acceptance

3. Other salient, interesting, illuminations or imp_ortant in this contact

4. New for remaining) target questions to be considered for the next conta_ct

151