Negotiating Lesbian Family Identity via Symbols and Rituals

Negotiating Lesbian FamilyIdentity via Symbols andRitualsElizabeth A. SuterUniversity of Denver, COKaren L. DaasSt. Mary’s University, San Antonio, TXKarla Mason BergenCollege of St. Mary, Omaha, NE

This study reports how lesbian families negotiate their family identities viasymbols and rituals. Sixteen couple interviews were conducted with lesbian co-mothers (for a total of 32 participants) who had their children via donor insem-ination in the contexts of their current same-sex relationships. Interviews wereanalyzed using grounded theory. Framed by symbolic interactionism, thisstudy reports how these families negotiated affirmation and disconfirmationof their identities when interacting with families of origin, social networks,sperm donors, and community institutions.

Keywords: communication; family; interpersonal relations; lesbianism;homosexual parents; rituals

Conservative estimates based on census data suggest there were 293,365female same-sex households in the United States in 2000 (Simmons &

O’Connell, 2003). Yet, the Census Bureau and scholars point to several chal-lenges in estimating the number of lesbian families. Gates and Ost (2004)

Journal of Family IssuesVolume XX Number XMonth XXXX XX-XX

© Sage Publications10.1177/0192513X07305752

http://jfi.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

1

Authors’ Note: Elizabeth A. Suter is an assistant professor in the Department of HumanCommunication Studies; Karen L. Daas, assistant professor, Department of English/Communication Studies; Karla Mason Bergen, assistant professor, Department of Creative Artsand Communication. This research was funded by a grant-in-aid received by the first author fromthe University of Nebraska–Lincoln Research Council. An earlier version of this article was pre-sented at the Top Four Paper Panel of the Family Communication Division Paper Session at theNational Communication Association, Chicago, 2004. Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Elizabeth A. Suter, Department of Human Communication Studies,University of Denver, 2000 E. Asbury Ave., Denver, CO 80208; e-mail: [email protected].

suggest that the true count of lesbian families is between 10% (322,701) and50% (440,047) higher than census figures. Even if statistics on lesbianfamilies with children are partial and inexact, the number of lesbian familiesis on the rise. Scholars have coined the phrase lesbian baby boom to capturethis demographic shift (Gartrell et al., 2000; Kershaw, 2000; Patterson, 1995;Weston, 1991). The recent lesbian baby boom seems to be driven in large partby the increasing number of children born via donor insemination in the con-texts of the mothers’ current relationships. This increased rise in the numberof lesbian families has been accompanied by increased visibility. The grow-ing visibility of lesbian families can be traced to the 1969 Stonewall riots,through the 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder(Gonsiorek, 1991), to these demographic shifts of today.

Despite the growing number and increasing visibility of these families,identity negotiation is a constant for lesbian families with children. Lesbianfamilies experience affirmation and disconfirmation of their family identi-ties from external others, such as families of origin, social networks, spermdonors, community members, and community institutions. Although thereis evidence that lesbian families’ interactions with others often challengetheir senses of family identity, it is less clear how lesbian families negotiatetheir family identities in the face of these challenges. Lack of understand-ing of how lesbian families negotiate their identities in these interactions isa critical problem because it prevents the development of research-basedresources to assist lesbian families and their communities in managingthese interactions in ways that affirm lesbian families’ identities.

The primary goal of this study is to investigate how lesbian mothers nego-tiate their family identities using family rituals and symbols. Using knowl-edge garnered from prior research on the use of symbols and rituals tocommunicate and negotiate identities, we examine how symbols and ritualscan help lesbian families negotiate affirmation for their family identities.

Sites of Lesbian Family Identity Negotiation

Some lesbian mothers report that their families of origin provide high levelsof social support (Donaldson, 2000; Lewin & Lyons, 1982) or, at least, less-stressful interactions than what such mothers encounter with day careproviders or homophobic persons (Lott-Whitehead & Tully, 1993). Somechildren have regular contact with relatives of the biological and the nonbio-logical mother (Patterson, Hurt & Mason, 1998), whereas others are isolated(Gartrell et al., 2000; Hequembourg, 2004). Disclosures of lesbianism often

2 Journal of Family Issues

disrupt relationships with parents and siblings. Motherhood often bringsmothers closer to or helps repair difficult relationships with families of origin(Dunne, 2000; Lewin & Lyons, 1982), although often involving tremendouscompromises on the part of the lesbian mothers (Lewin & Lyons, 1982).

Gartrell et al. (1996) found that although 85% of the prospective lesbianmothers expected their children to be welcomed by family, the remaining15% expected that no relative would acknowledge their children. In a follow-up study, Gartrell et al. (2000) found that 14% of biological mothersreported that their parents failed to recognize the nonbiological mother as aco-mother. Additionally, 17% of the biological mothers and 13% of thenonbiological mothers reported that their parents did not relate to theirchildren as fully fledged grandchildren. Biological ties among the biologi-cal mother, her child, and her relatives have been found to facilitate rela-tives’ acceptance of the child, and vice versa—that is, the lack of biologicalties among the nonbiological mother, her child, and her relatives negativelyaffects support and acceptance (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999; Pattersonet al., 1998; Sullivan, 2004b). Grandparents worry about the effect of themothers’ lesbianism on the children, the absence of father figures, others’reaction to their grandparenthood, and the lack of appropriate terms forgrandchildren of donor insemination families (Hequembourg, 2004).Family-of-origin reactions range from immediate elation to coming toterms to outright rejection (Sullivan, 2004b).

Some lesbian mothers’ social networks affirm their choice to becomeparents (Donaldson, 2000; Dunne, 2000; Lewin & Lyons, 1982), whereasother social network members disconfirm this choice (Gartrell et al., 1999;Levy, 1989; Speziale & Gopalakrishna, 2004). Some lesbian mothers findaffirmation for their family identities via chosen families (see Weston,1991) in which family ties extend beyond blood or legal relations to includefriends and others (Dunne, 2000). Simultaneously, discrimination withinthe lesbian community occurs against lesbian families with children(Gartrell et al., 1999; Levy, 1989; Speziale & Gopalakrishna, 2004), par-ticularly against sons (Levy, 1989).

Research finds that informally arranging insemination with a donor per-sonally known by the mothers often takes years of difficult negotiations, toreach agreements on the donor’s role and level of involvement (Dalton &Bielby, 2000; Dunne, 2000; Sullivan, 2004a). Following these negotiations,nonbiological mothers still report fears over custody suits (Gartrell et al.,1996). Thus, lesbian mothers often choose anonymous sperm donors, whohave no legal or social claim to fatherhood, rather than a known donor whocould usurp previous agreements, assert parental rights, and displace the

Suter et al. / Negotiating Lesbian Family Identity 3

nonbiological mother (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Dalton & Bielby, 2000). Yet,some mothers choose to participate in donor identification programs (ordonor ID programs), which allow the child, after age 18, the option oflearning the identity of the donor (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Dalton & Bielby,2000; Seibel, 1996).

Lesbian mothers report experiencing acceptance and discrimination intheir interactions with community institutions, such as schools, doctors, orhospitals, over which they feel little control (Lott-Whitehead & Tully, 1993).Reported negative interactions include being asked insensitive and ignorantquestions about their families that make them feel concerned for theirchildren (Donaldson, 2000), homophobia from health care providers duringpregnancy (Gartrell et al., 1999), difficulties finding child care because oftheir sexual orientation (Gartrell et al., 1999), and challenges accessing emer-gency child care for their children (Chabot & Ames, 2004). Many lesbianmothers fear that community members and community institutions will stig-matize their children for being a part of lesbian families (Peplau & Beals,2004; Speziale & Gopalakrishna, 2004; van Dam, 2004). This article exam-ines how lesbian families, particularly the mothers, attempt to negotiate affir-mation for their family identities through symbols and rituals.

Symbolic Interactionism

This study is guided by symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969; Mead,1943). We draw on Perinbanayagam (2003) as a way to frame our under-standing of symbolic interactionism. First, we view communication as thekey means by which identity is negotiated. Second, we view identity as asocial process. Individuals do not necessarily accomplish their intended orclaimed identities. Rather, interactions with others shape the identity that theindividual—in our study, the family—is able to negotiate. Selves, then, arecontingent. Persons are uncertain how others will take up (affirm or reject)the identities as presented through actions. Third, we view simultaneousanalysis of structure and process as being critical. Although Perinbanayagamdoes suggest the possibility that those who study interactional processescould link these to larger structures, he undermines the necessary, simultane-ous study of structure and process by granting that studying structure absentof process is warranted and necessary. In our view, understandings of processare ideally situated within structural understandings because processes aremost fully understood when examined in the contexts in which they occur(Metts & Planalp, 2003; Staske, 1996, 1998, 1999). Fourth, we incorporate


role, drawing from Goffman’s dramaturgical approach (1959) to identity.Role is intricately tied to identity (Park, 1950). The role that one performspartially establishes who one is and the context in which one acts (Goffman,1959). In the next section, we address how lesbian families can attempt to useroles to communicate familial identity.

Strategies for Negotiating Affirmationfor Lesbian Family Identity

Although symbols have long been seen as being communicative of iden-tity (Baxter, 1987; Burke, 1968; Goffman, 1971; Rothenbuhler, 1998; Turner,1967), no study to date has looked at how symbols can help lesbian familiesnegotiate affirmation for their family identities. In an exploratory study onlesbian name changing, Suter and Oswald (2003) found that a few lesbianmothers cited changing to a shared family name as a strategy to claim legiti-mate family status. Studies to date, albeit limited, have rather focused on howsymbols help construct a legitimate parental identity for the nonbiologicalmother. Findings include address terms (i.e., using a mother term for the non-biological mother; Bergen, Suter, & Daas, 2006; Dunne, 2000), children’slast names (e.g., giving the child a last name that uses or incorporates the non-biological mother’s last name; Bergen et al., 2006; Reimann, 1997), sharedphysical resemblance by matching the donor with nonbiological mother’sphysical characteristics (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Dalton & Bielby, 2004;Reimann, 1997), and legal moves or “symbolic attempts to create legal rightsfor the nonbiological mother in place of formal parental recognition throughsecond-parent adoption or joint custody” (Bergen et al., 2006, p. 218).

Like symbols, rituals have also long been seen as being communicativeof identity (Jorgenson & Bochner, 2004; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2002; Pleck,2000; Werner, Altman, Brown, & Ginet, 1993; Wolin & Benett, 1984).Research indicates that family-of-origin rituals are not always affirming forgay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer (GLBTQ) individuals and caninstead be profound sites of disconfirmation for the identities of such per-sons (Oswald, 2000, 2002; Oswald & Suter, 2004). However, limitedresearch exists on how lesbian families as a whole use family rituals tonegotiate family identity. Dalton and Bielby (2000) found that lesbianmothers used public wedding ceremonies as a strategy to challenge hetero-normative ideologies about family, to gain public recognition for theirfamily form, and to help institutionalize the lesbian family. Lannutti’s study(2005) of the impact of legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts


revealed that respondents believed that marriages would, in part, providevalidation and legal security for lesbian families with children.

Using a symbolic interactionist perspective, this study extends priorresearch by looking at how lesbian families use family symbols and ritualsas strategies to negotiate family identity in interactions with families of ori-gin, social network members, and community institutions.

Method

The present study is part of a larger study. Bergen et al. (2006) reportedon constructing a legitimate parental identity for the nonbiological mother.The portion of the data relating to negotiating overall lesbian family iden-tity is presented in the present study.

Recruitment

To be included in the study, a participant had to be at least 19 years old,a self-identified member of a lesbian couple who had been in a committedrelationship for at least 1 year, and raising a child in the context of her cur-rent relationship. Participants were recruited via announcements at a same-sex parenting group, at community groups, and with advertisements placedin various GLBTQ outlets. Flyers with a call for participants and contactinformation for the first author were distributed. We recruited and simulta-neously engaged in data analysis until we had reached theoretical saturation(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Participants

We conducted 16 interviews with the mothers of two-parent lesbianfamilies with children, for a total of 32 participants. Two researchers con-ducted each interview. The children were not interviewed, nor were theypresent, with the exception of very young children still nursing. All familieshad their children via donor insemination in the contexts of their currentrelationships, which is important from an identity negotiation perspective.Research finds that donor insemination families negotiate family identitydifferently than do other lesbian families, such as those with children froma previous heterosexual relationship (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Gartrell et al.,1996; Gartrell et al., 1999; Gartrell et al., 2000; Hequembourg, 2004;Patterson, 1995; van Dam, 2004).


The mean age of the mothers was 37 years (SD = 5.3), ranging from 28to 50. The mean length of relationship was 7.0 years (SD = 3.1), rangingfrom 2.5 to 15.0. The mean household income was $78,125 (SD =$22,500), ranging from $30,000 to over $100,000. Thirty participants wereWhite and two were Black. Nine families resided in an urban area, four ina rural area, and three in a suburban area. Of the 32 participants, 11 wereprofessionals, 5 were employed in human services, 4 in health, 3 as home-makers, 3 in labor, 2 in education, 2 in law enforcement, 1 in agriculture,and 1 in government. Children ranged in age from newborn to 7 years, withan average age of 18 months. Thirteen families (26 participants) weremembers of the same regional same-sex parenting group.

Data Collection

Interviews were conducted in families’ homes. Two researchers jointlyconducted each of these interviews. Before interviews, participants signedconsent forms and agreed, in writing, to be audiotaped. Participants were firstgiven two blank handouts. Participants were asked to list their family sym-bols on one and their family rituals on the other. Participants’ responses to“choose one symbol or ritual and tell how it shows you are a family” wereprobed until all symbols and rituals pertaining to family identity wereaddressed. After the interview, participants were given a handout with uni-versity and community resources that included programs for lesbian families.

Interviews lasted 1.0 hr to 2.5 hr with an average length of 2.0 hr.Mothers were compensated $25 for their time. Interviews were transcribedverbatim. Names were changed, and interviews were given numeric codesused for the duration of the study.

Analysis

Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss,1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Analysis included line-by-line coding,focused coding, and analytic memo writing (Charmaz, 1995, 2000, 2002).Line-by-line coding involves examining each line of data and defining theactions occurring in it. The data were then focused coded, which involvesusing the initial codes that recurred in line-by-line coding to categorizedata. Analytic memos were written and rewritten to explain and elaboratefocused codes, as an intermediate step between coding and report writing.To keep with common grounded theory practice, we used the constant com-parative method to ensure the validity and check the credibility of the data


analysis (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Henderson, 2005; Oswald, 2002;Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The constant comparative method help ensure thefit between theory and data (internal verification) by providing a means forus to continually check and recheck the abstract properties of symbolicinteractionism against the raw data. However, we went beyond this to checkthe credibility of our analysis and to ensure agreement between coders(external verification). To augment the constant comparative method, twocoders independently analyzed and separately produced analytic memos.The two coders met to discuss each of these analytic memos and agreed onthe fit between data and coding categories. A detailed description of eachstep in coding is available from the first author.

Findings

Using a symbolic interactionist perspective (Mead, 1943; Perinbanayagam,2003), the findings presented in this section explore how lesbian familiesnegotiate family identity via the family symbols of last names and donorchoice and via the family rituals of attending a same-sex parenting group anddoing family. We organize our analysis of family symbols and rituals aroundthe interactional negotiations whereby lesbian family is affirmed and discon-firmed as a legitimate family identity.

Negotiating Family Identity via Symbols

Last names. Mothers identified last names as one key symbol that they useto negotiate family identity. Mothers believed last names legitimated theirfamily form, in part, because shared last names signal family. Deb stated,“When Drew was first born, one of the first things that showed that we werea family unit was when we decided that his last name was going to behyphenated.” Cami and Bray discussed how a shared family name triggersfamily. Cami reported, “It is traditional assessment that you’re a family. . . .You have the same last name. People just click that that’s a family.” In herwork with lobbyists for family groups whose platform does not recognize les-bian families, Bray finds the shared name helps these lobbyists understandthem as family. Furthermore, because last names are a mobile aspect offamily identity, children carry them into a myriad of contexts with differentaudiences, presumably communicating with whom they share family ties.Lisa asserted, “It’s something that they will carry with them.” Robindescribed how “when we go places, the hospital or emergency room or some-thing like that, when we say, ‘This is Jacob Miller-Wilson’ and then they go,


‘Which one of you is the mom?’ and we say, ‘We are both the mom.’” Robinand Maria believe that their children’s hyphenated name challenges the con-ventional assumption that families are not headed by two mothers. People’squestions allow Maria and Robin to explain their family form. However,Shannon and Ellen gave their child the biological mother’s last name for“insurance reasons” to ensure coverage for their child. The biologicalmother’s name is on the birth certificate, whereas the nonbiological mother’sname is not. The child’s coverage is secure given that the biological motherand child are coded as family. However, for others, the ability to signal familythrough naming was not always positive. For instance, Theresa and Brendadid not adopt the hyphenated name because a hyphenated name with a les-bian co-mother might threaten Theresa’s military job.

Co-mothers further held that last names communicate legitimate familystatus because they convey their sense of commitment to family. For instance,Angie and Lisa related how their twins’ hyphenated last name makes a state-ment to extended family that Angie, Lisa, and the twins consider themselvesa family unit. Lisa explained that she and Angie are in a “long-term, perma-nent relationship and that’s the way we’ve named the girls, and we intend thatthis will be a ’til-death-do-us-part kind of thing.” Similarly, Cami and Brayheld that their shared last name indexes the cultural assumption of commit-ment granted to heterosexual families in which the female spouse adopts thehusband’s name (Carbaugh, 1996; Suter, 2004).

Given that interactions shape the identity that the family is able to nego-tiate, people’s use of lesbian families’ names can provide affirmation.Receiving cards and packages addressed to their family name validatesCami and Bray’s family identity. Meanwhile, decisions about last namesserve as a powerful reminder of the fragility of these families’ identities.Annette decided to keep her last name until her parents die; she did notadopt the same last name as her partner and their son, Ashley, because ofher parents’ response to Ashley’s impending arrival. The news of anexpected baby is traditionally announced in Annette’s family at a familyholiday gathering, marked by the opening of a bottle of champagne and fol-lowed by a round of toasts. However, Annette’s announcement of her part-ner Jamie’s pregnancy resulted in Annette’s father commenting, “This wasjust another kind of problem that they were going to try and deal with.”Annette continued, “Then after he said this, he got up and went to the localbar to see if they were having a game of pinochle.” In the face of this rejec-tion, Annette is maintaining a symbolic connection with her parents via ashared last name in hopes that her parents will enact their role as grand-parents for Ashley, given that they are Ashley’s only grandparents.


Donor choice. Mothers identified their choice of sperm donor as a secondkey symbol that they use to negotiate family identity. Thirteen families choseunknown donors who agreed to have no role in the child’s life. Two familieschose an unknown donor who agreed to a donor ID program. One familychose a known donor, whose rights are limited by a parenting agreement.

Mothers suggested that physical similarity between themselves and theirchildren—that is, “looking related”—symbolized familyhood. To attempt toachieve this, families (with one exception) selected donors with physical char-acteristics most like the nonbiological mother. Traits were selected thatmatched the nonbiological mother, such as skin tone, eye color, hair color, andethnicity to increase the likelihood that the child would look like a blend of thetwo mothers, as Sandra said, “so that we would all look related.” Jamie com-pared this practice to what naturally occurs when “heterosexual couples thathave children have the biological connection and the physical characteristics.”A few families chose donors with not only physical characteristics but alsononphysical characteristics most like the nonbiological mother. As the blue-eyed, blonde-haired nonbiological mother, Bray said, “We could have pickeda blonde-hair, blue-eye guy that was into the arts. Instead, we picked one intoengineering, which is probably closer to something I would be doing.”

Eva and Rae were the only parents that did not select a donor based onphysical characteristics. They considered only the donor’s medical history.They also did not factor in nonphysical characteristics. Eva questioned,“Like how is any of that genetic? . . . It’s not hardwired necessarily.”However, all of the other families indicated that they carefully selected adonor with the goal of creating physical similarity between both mothersand the child, as a symbol of their family identity.

Donor ID programs simultaneously negotiate structure and process byproviding the child the option to have a relationship with the donor; yet, theseprograms prevent donor–child interaction until the child is an adult. Jennyexplained that she and Shelly wanted “a donor and not a father. . . . We diddecide that the safest thing for the two of us and our family unit was to gothrough a sperm bank and have it be somebody we didn’t know.” Susan drewa parallel between the benefits of donor ID programs and the benefits of openadoption. She critiqued closed adoptions: “In my work, I’ve seen so manykids that just feel so lost because they don’t know their history. . . . That isreally painful for those kids.” Like an open adoption, the donor ID programprovides their child “that choice. So she can contact him and find out if she’sgot other relatives that she may want to be in touch with.”

Dina and Libby were the only family to select a known donor. Theybelieve that it will be healthy for Hannah to have an ongoing relationship


with her donor as she grows up. Dina and Libby have a legal parentingagreement with the donor and his partner. The donor gave up his parentalrights, but he and his partner have visitation rights. If identities are contin-gent and predicated on future interactions, donor–child interactions, regard-less of the age at which these interactions are allowed, could challenge thechild’s sense of familyhood. These tensions may explain in part why it tookJenny and Shelly 2.5 years, with the aid of a therapist, to decide between aknown and unknown donor. Despite their angst about their child’s eventualright to contact her sperm donor, Jenny explained that they chose a donorID program for the well-being of their child: “I don’t think that as parentsyou have the right to, if that option is out there for your children, to eliminatethat.” However, for most of the co-mothers whom we interviewed, strategi-cally choosing a sperm donor was grounded in the hope that physical simi-larity between the mothers and child would serve to help communicate theirfamily identities to others.

Negotiating Family Identity via Rituals

Same-sex parenting group. Mothers identified attending a same-sex par-enting group as one key ritual that they use to negotiate family identity. Atthe time of interviewing, 13 of the 16 families were members of the sameregional same-sex parenting group, which meets monthly.

Children whose families attend a same-sex parenting group have a reg-ular opportunity to see and interact with other families with two mothers.Families attend in large part so that their children will not feel isolated.Cami, one of the five co-founding families, addressed how lessening thechildren’s senses of social isolation was a central goal from the outset:“That was the whole idea for all the kids involved, and you know that theyare not so isolated.” Likewise, Ellen explained that she and Shannon “reallywanted to interact with other families like ours so Chloe would know thatshe’s not the only one in the city growing up with two moms.” Similarly,Wanda suggested that she and her partner wanted to show Natalie “that shewasn’t just the lone ranger at school with two moms.” Lisa emphasized howthe group offers children a network of peers they can later identify with atschool: “It was really important to us to find other kids that our kids couldgrow up with so that they wouldn’t feel alone as they start public school. . . .There are other kids they can identify with.”

Mothers also reported attending to help normalize the lesbian family formfor their children. Theresa asserted, “I want our child to know that she’s notthe only one with two mommies, so that she knows she’s normal when people


come and talk to her, mingle.” Sarah observed how “we are the only same-sex couple on this block of eight or ten houses. So, if you figure that and youwant to base that as your norm, then, then we can appear abnormal to her.”Sarah believes, “When we get together on that day, I think it’s an example ofhow normal everything is, how you are just like so many other kids.”

Patty and Sandra helped co-found this group so that their children could,in Sandra’s words, “have other kids [that] they can talk to and kind of haveas a resource. They are going to go through a lot of stuff that we didn’t haveto go through growing up.” Not having grown up in lesbian families,Michelle and Susan felt unprepared. Susan explained, “There’s going to berough times for her, which I think will be hard for Michelle and I, and she’sgoing to need other kids to talk to about it.” Shelly stressed how friendshipsformed at the same-sex parenting group may provide a supportive looking-glass self (Cooley, 1983) if the children face problems later: “And when ourchild grows older . . . if they ever have any problems, [if] they feel, ‘Whydo I have two moms?’ or anything, maybe they could see that there areother kids that do have two moms.” These mothers hope that the parentinggroup will help the children understand that being part of a lesbian familyis a valid and worthy identity.

Attending meetings also helps these mothers affirm their own senses offamily. Sarah believes that Michelle and her “benefit just having otherpeople around that are going to be going through those same things.” Manyof the mothers believe that this parenting group provides a unique opportu-nity to connect lesbian families with similar values. Lisa reported being“unaware if there is another organization that really provides a means forpeople to get together that’s not around alcohol or kind of a wild and crazylifestyle perspective and you know that’s not where we are at.” As mothersliving in a rural area where they are the only lesbian family, Theresa andBrenda recently began attending the group, hoping to meet other lesbianfamilies. Theresa said, “We also would like to meet more couples that wewould be able to hang out with because we don’t have a network offriends.” Interaction with a network that shares a similar family identityaffirms family identity.

Of the three families that were not members of the parenting group,Annette and Jamie did not attend, because they were unaware that it existedat the time of interviewing. They have subsequently joined. Eva and Raewere aware of the group and knew some of the members but never felt thedesire to join, because they did not relate to the other mothers. Althoughthis could have been for a variety of reasons, it may have been due in partto racial differences. This same-sex parenting group is, almost without


exception, composed of White lesbian families. It seems possible that Evaand Rae may not have related with the other mothers because they areBlack lesbian mothers. Issues of race and parenting may have trumpedissues of sexual orientation and parenting. Or, Eva and Rae may have pre-ferred to affiliate with a parenting group that could provide support withissues related to mothering for both sexual and racial minorities. Dina andLibby attended one of the monthly meetings; yet, after checking out thegroup, they never joined nor attended another meeting because, like Evaand Rae, they did not identify with other members. Although their lack ofidentification may also have been due to a variety of reasons, it may havebeen influenced by the fact that Dina and Libby were the only couple whochose to have a known donor. All of the other couples chose an unknowndonor, who either agreed to have no role in the child’s life or who agreed toa donor ID program. Whereas the rights of Dina and Libby’s donor are lim-ited by a parenting agreement, the donor and his partner have the ability topermeate the family’s external boundaries. Negotiating the terms of a rela-tionship with a known donor may have trumped, and Dina and Libby mayhave experienced difficulty relating to families not facing similar issues.

Doing family. Mothers identified doing family as a second key ritual thatthey use to negotiate family identity. Our ritual category of doing familybuilds on C. West and Zimmerman’s notion (1987) of “doing gender,” whichdepicts how gender is enacted through “routine, methodical, and recurring”social interaction (p. 126). Doing family captures a similar process in whichfamily identity, rather than gender, is created via the “doing” of ordinary andmundane patterned family interactions that may happen daily, weekly,monthly, or less frequently. The importance is that doing family is recognizedby others as ordinary patterned family interactions.

Families in this study negotiated family identity within and around thenatural ways that families “do” family, such as taking nightly walks, shop-ping, attending church, displaying family photos at work, and interacting atday care or school. Carol explained, “Just kind of the intimacy that natu-rally happens with a family who are out and together and doing something. . . shows that we are a family.” Shannon explained, “Just by the things wedo. When we, when we go anywhere, we’re together, you know, and Chloecalls me ‘Mom,’ calls Ellen ‘Nay,’ in public.” Her partner, Ellen, continued,“When they see us together with her, I think they know automatically thatwe are a family. We don’t act any different than any other family.”

Families talked extensively about how patterned family interactions, suchas shopping or nightly walks, became profound sites of family identity nego-tiation with strangers and neighbors. Carol and Lynn chose shopping as the


first ritual to discuss that shows that they are a family—“shopping,” in Carol’swords, “because it doesn’t matter where we go, somebody has to—they seethe intimacy between the two of us, the three of us, really, and need to defineit, and it happens a lot.” Many mothers believed that nightly walks functionedsimilarly. “Our walks are also symbols and rituals that communicate we area family,” according to Lynn. Sarah described how physical togetherness onnightly walks visibly demonstrates familyhood because “it’s a joining of allthree bodies at one time doing an activity . . . the closeness and proximity ofus together.” Julie also noted how “even the little neighbor kid figured that out. . . ‘Where’s Riley’s other mom?’And we didn’t say anything to them.” Lynnrecounted how “doing the stroller thing, the dog thing” makes clear that “we,the whole group of us walking together, dog, child, live in that house overthere. And you [can] see the wheels turning.”

Mothers believed that doing family by attending church validated familyidentity. Annette explained that attending church “reaffirmed the fact thatwe are a family.” For Julie and Sarah, whose Catholic and Lutheran back-grounds did not welcome lesbian families, it was crucial that they find achurch that recognized and affirmed their family. At Maria and Robin’schurch, “the pastors know us as husband and wife,” Robin explained. Angieand Lisa’s church has a reconciling service the Sunday before the annualpride celebration to underscore that the congregation is inclusive of all per-sons, including GLBTQ persons. This past year, Angie, Lisa, and their twochildren were asked to provide a contemporary reflection on life as a les-bian family. Lisa recounted, “They said, ‘Gosh it was really nice to hearfrom you,’ or ‘It was really nice to hear what your life is like.’ . . . A couplepeople came up, which just floored us, and said, ‘We just cried through thewhole thing.’” Angie recalled, “This young girl came up and told me,thanks for being brave,” which Lisa and Angie perceived as recognition ofthe challenges that lesbian families face. The reactions of parishionersaffirmed their familyhood.

Mothers reported that doing family by displaying photos at work helpedconstitute the role of parent for coworkers. For Theresa, displaying a pictureof her baby at work (at her civilian, not military, job) represented a monu-mental personal step. Before becoming a mother, she had concealed hersexual orientation at work: “It wasn’t anybody’s business because . . . it’s justone little aspect of my life.” However, now that she is a parent, photos of Kikiline her desk, “right there for the world to see.” Susan also discussed how dis-playing photos constructs her parenthood and familyhood: “I have a familypicture on my desk at work. And I speak about my daughter and my partnerat work, regularly and openly.” Coworkers now routinely ask questions, such


as “‘How’s Lexi? How’s the baby?’ You know, ‘How’s Michelle?’” Susancommented on the larger importance of rendering her family form visible atwork: “I do my part by doing that—let people see me. They’ve known me foryears, and now they know, and now I have a family. And it may not resembletheir own family, but they treat me no different.” Photos in the workplace helpto constitute these mothers roles as parents.

Given the relational nature of identity, others in the wider social spherecan influence the relative accomplishment of intended identities. A routineinteraction between Drew and a child at day care illustrates how easily oth-ers can deny lesbian mothers’ claimed identities. Pam explained how Drewsaid, “‘I have two mommies,’ and then this one kid goes, ‘You can’t havetwo, you know, mommies.’ He goes, ‘Yes I can. I have ‘Mommy’ and‘Momma.’” At other times, such routine interactions can work to affirm familyidentity. Maria explained, “Our names carry over through to preschool. Thekids refer to us, and they will say, ‘Jacob, Momma M’s here.’” Even Jacob’spreschool teacher calls Maria “Momma M” and Robin “Momma R.” Theteacher’s affirmation of Maria and Robin’s roles as mothers served to affirmtheir family’s identity.

Discussion

Framed by symbolic interactionism, our study reports how family sym-bols and rituals became profound sites where the identities of 16 lesbianfamilies that were formed through donor insemination were never simplyclaimed but always negotiated. First, communication plays a central role infamily identity negotiations. Last names shared by both mothers and theirchild, physical resemblance constructed via careful selection of the spermdonor. and shared activities, whether nightly walks or attending a same-sexparenting group, communicate family status. Second, identity is a socialprocess. Lesbian families negotiate affirmation and rejection of their familyidentities. Cards and packages addressed to a shared family name affirmfamily identity, whereas classroom teasing that challenges the possibility ofhaving two mommies undermines the lesbian family form. Third, negotiat-ing family identity involves simultaneous management of structure andprocess. Donor ID programs safeguard custody by preventing donor–childinteraction until the child reaches adulthood. Fourth, attention to role illus-trates the constitutive nature of roles, such as joint motherhood. A lesbianmother’s display of family photos at work or being called “mother” in rou-tine daily interaction with others helps constitute her role as a valid parent.


These aspects mutually inform one another and, taken together, furtherunderstandings of identity negotiation. Interactions with family members,social networks, sperm donors, and community institutions were some-times identity affirming and other times identity disconfirming.

Our study supports and extends prior research on the interrelationshipsamong family symbols, rituals, and lesbian family identity. It extends Suterand Oswald’s exploratory finding (2003) that shared last names in lesbianfamilies function as a symbolic bid for legitimate family status. Mostfamilies in the current study reported that last names helped negotiatefamily status—for instance, by challenging heteronormative assumptionsabout family, by being subject to strategic use to ensure benefits for thechild (i.e., insurance coverage), and by conveying commitment to familiesof origin. However, the power of last names to communicate relational tiescreated problems for others (e.g., potentially exposing a mother’s lesbian-ism to the U.S. military). And, likewise, not all interactions were affirming.Annette’s decision to retain her family last name until her parents die, inhopes that they will in turn treat her child as a full-fledged grandchild, iscongruent with the sacrifices that lesbian mothers make to keep theirfamilies of origin involved in their children’s lives (Lewin & Lyons, 1982).

Like those of previous studies, our study’s participants attempted tomatch the donor’s physical traits to those of the nonbiological mother(Chabot & Ames, 2004; Dalton & Bielby, 2004; Reimann, 1997) and insome cases went beyond by matching donor and nonbiological mother non-physical traits, such as an interest in the arts or sports. Although the moth-ers in our study matched traits of donors to nonbiological mothers, theirmotivations differ from those of past research. Previous studies have foundthat participants do this matching to help construct a legitimate parentalidentity for the nonbiological mother (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Dalton &Bielby, 2004; Reimann, 1997). By contrast, the mothers in our studymatched as a symbolic bid for legitimacy of the entire family. If the childlooks and acts like a blend of the mothers, others will react in accordance,treat the unit like family, and affirm family identity.

Dina and Libby were the only mothers in this study to choose a knowndonor. Congruent with participants of previous research (Dalton & Bielby,2000; Dunne, 2000; Sullivan, 2004a), Dina and Libby negotiated his roleand level of involvement. In their case, they were negotiating with thedonor and his partner. Whereas the donor conceded his parental rights, heand his partner have visitation rights—all sealed with a parenting agree-ment, which is open to challenge by the courts and may not be honored bythe agreeing parties (Bergen et al., 2006; Oswald & Kuvalanka, 2005).


Although the rest of the mothers in our study chose anonymous donors asthe participants in Chabot and Ames (2004) and Dalton and Bielby (2000)did, only two participated in donor ID programs. Yet, the two lesbian co-mothers’ reasons for electing to participate echoed those of prior findings—a simultaneous desire to protect the family’s integrity and allow the child anoption to have a connection with her or his biological father.

The two studies to date on the use of family ritual to negotiate familyidentities both reported on same-sex marriage ceremonies (Dalton &Bielby, 2000; Lannutti, 2005). Our study’s findings on the rituals of attend-ing a same-sex parenting group and doing family add to this literature. Boththe rituals of attending a same-sex parenting group and doing family fallunder patterned interactions in Wolin and Bennett’s three-part typology(1984) of family rituals. “In these commonplace activities, families willexpress their sacred beliefs and common identity” (p. 406). Patternedfamily interactions communicate family identity in that

individuals in the family solidify that aspect of individual identity that growsout of the family identity. The boundaries between home and outside,between family and stranger, and between one member of the family and oth-ers are all drawn by these daily interaction rituals. (p. 407)

The mothers in our study reported that same-sex parenting group meet-ings normalize the lesbian family form and lessen their children’s socialisolation. Much of the identity work that these mothers credit to themonthly group meetings is predicated on future interactions. The mothershope that these recurring interactions with other lesbian families is helpingto build their children’s sense of family identity, which will later serve as abuffer to possible future negative peer interactions. The repeated interac-tions at the parenting group with families like their own will ideally fosteran understanding that heterosexism and homophobia are mistaken and thatbeing part of a lesbian family is a valid and worthy identity.

It then remains possible that these children who are routinely attendingsame-sex parenting group potlucks and play groups may not become ascloseted and secretive about their families as they mature (R. West &Turner, 1995). Lesbian parents in Litovich and Langhout (2004) enacteddiscursive strategies with their children to help them cope in ways thataffirm their lesbian family identities as they negotiate future heterosexistinteractions. At early ages, parents facilitated open discourse about sexualorientation as well as heterosexism. Parents reported that these conversa-tions allowed their children to be open with their parents, specifically in


discussing heterosexist interactions. As the children matured, parents advo-cated specific coping strategies to deal with heterosexist interactions. Atyounger ages, children were proud of their families, outspoken to theirpeers, and felt compelled to educate peers who misunderstood their familyform. However, as these children matured, they became silent and secretiveabout their families. In response, parents reported helping their children tolet go of the felt responsibility to defend all lesbian families, and theypointed out to their children that no one person can undo heterosexism insociety. Parents also taught their children to be tolerant, even when otherchildren were intolerant toward them. Parents further taught their childrenthat heterosexism was unfairly directed at them, that it was actually meanttoward an arbitrary demographic of lesbian families, and that they (thechildren) were not inherently flawed as persons.

Limitations and Future Research

One limitation of this study is that 13 of the 16 families belonged to thesame regional same-sex parenting group. This shared social experiencemost likely influenced how these families chose to negotiate their identities.Although the three families that were not members of this parenting groupoften concurred with the majority patterns, it is necessary to note the timesthat they did not. For instance, Eva and Rae were the only family uncon-cerned with matching physical traits to the nonbiological mother, and theyquestioned that nonphysical traits could have a genetic basis. At the sametime, many variations across parenting group members are reported here.Families varied in terms of levels of group integration. A number of themwere well integrated and in some cases helped co-found the group, whereasothers—particularly, recent mothers—were newcomers to the group, rela-tively unaware of group norms and shared values. Families also varied inlevels of participation. Families who had been members the longest werenot always the most active, and in one case, a founding family reported oneof the lowest levels of participation.

Regardless, we recognize that drawing 13 of 16 families from the sameparenting group is more likely to present a homogeneous picture of theidentity negotiation processes of lesbian families than if more nonmemberfamilies had volunteered to participate in our study. However, given thatevery family negotiates identity in its own way, generalizability is neitherpossible nor important. What remains important is that we learn how thismeaningful group of families negotiates its identities.


This research raises awareness of needed areas of inquiry. Although thisstudy extends prior research on families’ use of symbolic bids and ritualperformances as they interactionally negotiate their identities, the resultsbeg for additional studies. Many questions remain unanswered—forexample, does strategy variation depend on the age of the children? Thechildren in this study were relatively young. Do parents of older childrenreport using different symbols and rituals? Also, as children mature, do theycreate or alter existing family symbols and rituals to help affirm their familyidentities, particularly in the face of heteronormative peer interactions?Does the gender of the children matter? Given the small sample size of thecurrent study, gender effects could not be analyzed. Furthermore, howmight these research findings for lesbian families with children extend togay families with children? Considering that having children via donorinsemination is not an option for gay families, their use of family symbolsand rituals might be quite different.

Parks’s review (1998) of the literature on lesbian parenthood reports thatresearch on lesbian families is limited by small samples and overrepresen-tation of White, middle-class, well-educated participants, due in large partto obstacles encountered accessing participants. This study is no exception.Future research is needed on how historically understudied same-sexparents might employ symbolism or rituals to help negotiate affirmation fortheir family identities.

References

Baxter, L. A. (1987). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship cultures. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 4, 261-280.

Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). “About as solid as a fishnet”: Symbolic con-struction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers. Journal ofFamily Communication, 6, 201-220.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Burke, K. (1968). Counter-statement. Berkeley: University of California Press. Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social identities in American

scenes. Albany: State University of New York Press.Chabot, J. M., & Ames, B. D. (2004). “It wasn’t ‘Let’s get pregnant and go do it’”: Decision

making in lesbian couples planning motherhood via donor insemination. Family Relations,53, 348-356.

Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. V. Langenhove (Eds.),Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium &J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 675-694).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooley, C. H. (1983). Human nature and the social order. New York: Schoken Books.(Original work published 1902)

Dalton, S. E., & Bielby, D. D. (2000). “That’s our kind of constellation”: Lesbian mothersnegotiate institutionalized understandings of gender within the family. Gender & Society,14, 36-61.

Donaldson, C. (2000). Midlife lesbian parenting. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services,11, 119-138.

Dunne, G. A. (2000). Opting into motherhood: Lesbians blurring the boundaries and trans-forming the meaning of parenthood and kinship. Gender & Society, 14, 11-35.

Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamilton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H., & Rodas, C. (1999). The nationallesbian family study: 2. Interviews with mothers of toddlers. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 69, 362-369.

Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Reed, N., Hamilton, J., Rodas, C., & Deck, A. (2000). The nationallesbian family study: 3. Interviews with mothers of five-year olds. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 70, 542-549.

Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., et al. (1996).The national lesbian family study: 1. Interviews with prospective mothers. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 272-281.

Gates, G., & Ost, J. (2004). A demographic profile of New Jersey’s gay and lesbian families.Retrieved March 2, 2006, from the Urban Institute Web site: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411031

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qual-itative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyer.

Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic

Books.Gonsiorek, J. C. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosex-

uality. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implicationsfor public policy (pp. 115-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Henderson, T. L. (2005). Grandparent visitation rights: Justices’ interpretation of the bestinterest of the child standard. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 638-664.

Hequembourg, A. (2004). Unscripted motherhood: Lesbian mothers negotiating incompletelyinstitutionalized family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,739-762.

Hequembourg, A. L., & Farrell, M. P. (1999). Lesbian motherhood: Negotiating marginal–mainstream identities. Gender & Society, 13, 540-557.

Jorgenson, J., & Bochner, A. P. (2004). Imagining families through stories and rituals. In A. L.Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 513-538). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kershaw, S. (2000). Living in a lesbian household: The effects on children. Child and FamilySocial Work, 5, 365-371.

Lannutti, P. J. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring the meanings of same-sex marriagewithin the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 22, 5-18.


Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2002). Wedding as text: Communicating cultural identities through ritual.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Levy, E. F. (1989). Lesbian motherhood: Identity and social support. Affilia, 4, 40-53.Lewin, E., & Lyons, T. A. (1982). Everything in its place: The coexistence of lesbianism and moth-

erhood. In W. Paul, J. D. Weinrich, J. C. Gonsiorek, & M. E. Hotvedt (Eds.), Homosexuality:Social, psychological, and biological issues (pp. 249-273). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Litovich, M. L., & Langhout, R. D. (2004). Framing heterosexism in lesbian families: A pre-liminary examination of resilient coping. Journal of Community and Applied SocialPsychology, 14, 411-435.

Lott-Whitehead, L., & Tully, C. T. (1993). The family lives of lesbian mothers. Smith CollegeStudies in Social Work, 63, 265-280.

Mead, G. H. (1943). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Metts, S., & Planalp, S. (2003). Emotion in communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication research (3rd ed., pp. 339-373).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and family ritual. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 17, 349-368.

Oswald, R. F. (2002). Who am I in relation to them? Gay, lesbian, and queer people leave thecity to attend rural family weddings. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 323-348.

Oswald, R. F., & Kuvalanka, K. A. (2005, April). Same-sex couples and parent–child rela-tionships: Patchworks of legalization. Paper presented at Pacific Sociological Meetings,Portland, OR.

Oswald, R. F., & Suter, E. A. (2004). Heterosexist inclusion and exclusion during ritual: A“straight vs. gay” comparison. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 881-899.

Park, R. E. (1950). Race and culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Parks, C. A. (1998). Lesbian parenthood: A review of the literature. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 68, 376-389.Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children. In A. R. D’Augelli &

C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan:Psychological perspectives (pp. 262-290). New York: Oxford University Press.

Patterson, C. J., Hurt, S., & Mason, C. D. (1998). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Children’scontact with grandparents and other adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68,390-399.

Peplau, L. A., & Beals, K. P. (2004). The family lives of lesbians and gay men. In A. L.Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 233-248). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Perinbanayagam, R. S. (2003). Telic reflections: Interactional processes, as such. SymbolicInteraction, 26, 67-83.

Pleck, E. H. (2000). Celebrating the family: Ethnicity, consumer culture, and family rituals.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reimann, R. (1997). Does biology matter? Lesbian couples’ transition to parenthood and theirdivision of labor. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 153-185.

Rothenbuhler, E. W. (1998). Ritual communication: From everyday conversation to mediatedceremony. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seibel, M. M. (1996). Therapeutic donor insemination. In M. M. Seibel & S. L. Crockin(Eds.), Family building through egg and sperm donation: Medical, legal, and ethical issues(pp. 33-45). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.


Simmons, T., & O’Connell, M. (2003). Married-couple and unmarried-partner households:2000. Census 2000 Special Reports. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from the U.S. CensusBureau Web site: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf

Speziale, B., & Gopalakrishna, V. (2004). Social support and functioning of nuclear familiesheaded by lesbian couples. Affilia, 19, 174-184.

Staske, S. A. (1996). Talking feelings: The collaborative construction of emotion in talkbetween close relational partners. Symbolic Interaction, 19, 111-136.

Staske, S. A. (1998). The normalization of problematic emotion in conversations betweenclose relational partners: Interpersonal emotion work. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 213-247.

Staske, S. A. (1999). Creating relational ties in talk: The collaborative construction of rela-tional jealousy. Symbolic Interaction, 22, 213-247.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sullivan, M. (2004a). The structure of donor-extended kinship. In The family of women:Lesbian mothers, their children, and the undoing of gender (pp. 190-210). Berkeley:University of California Press.

Sullivan, M. (2004b). Truth and reconciliation: Families of origin come around and comeout. In The family of women: Lesbian mothers, their children, and the undoing of gender(pp. 124-156). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Suter, E. A. (2004). Tradition never goes out of style: The role of tradition in women’s nam-ing practices. Communication Review, 7, 57-88.

Suter, E. A., & Oswald, R. F. (2003). Do lesbians change their last names in the context of acommitted relationship? Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 71-83.

Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

van Dam, M. A. (2004). Mothers in two types of lesbian families: Stigma experiences, sup-ports, and burdens. Journal of Family Nursing, 10, 450-484.

Werner, C. M., Altman, I., Brown, B. B., & Ginet, J. (1993). Celebrations in personal rela-tionships: A transactional/dialectical perspective. In S. Duck (Ed.), Social context andrelationships: Understanding relationship processes (Vol. 3, pp. 109-138). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.West, R., & Turner, L. H. (1995). Communication in gay and lesbian families. In T. J. Socha

& G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication (pp. 147-169). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Wolin, S. J., & Bennett, L. A. (1984). Family rituals. Family Process, 23, 401-420.


Documents

Negotiating Lesbian Family Identity via Symbols and Rituals