Rainbow Families

description80 papers

group64 followers

lightbulbAbout this topic

Rainbow families refer to family structures that include LGBTQ+ parents and their children, encompassing various forms of parenting such as biological, adoptive, and blended families. This term highlights the diversity of family dynamics and the social, legal, and cultural contexts that shape the experiences of these families.

lightbulbAbout this topic

Key research themes

1. How do Rainbow Families navigate sociopolitical and legal challenges across different cultural and geopolitical contexts?

This research area investigates the interplay between sociopolitical contexts, legal recognition, and family formation processes of rainbow families globally. It highlights how diverse legal frameworks, cultural identities, and political movements shape the experiences and visibility of rainbow families, particularly focusing on marginalized contexts such as South Africa, Poland, China, Taiwan, and the European Union. Understanding these dynamics is vital for advancing inclusive policies, social acceptance, and effective advocacy tailored to distinct socio-legal landscapes.

At the End of the Rainbow

by Hans Erik Stolten

2016

Key finding: This study uses South Africa's 'Rainbow Nation' identity as a metaphor for post-apartheid social unity but critically reveals that economic disparities and persistent ethnic divisions complicate this ideal. It connects the... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Family display, family type, or community? Limitations in the application of a concept

by Julie Walsh

2022, Families, Relationships and Societies

Key finding: By applying the concept of 'family display' to migrant children in Northern England and Mennonite adults in Mexico and Canada, this research exposes how cultural and community contexts modulate the presentation and... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Rainbow parents and the familial model of tongzhi LGBT activism in contemporary China

by Wei Wei

2022, Chinese Sociological Review

Key finding: Focusing on Chinese 'rainbow parents' advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, the study reveals a multistage process of moral self-transformation leveraged through neo-familism to engage public and state authorities. This familial... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Nuclear Family

by Tetiana Sukach

2025, Springer eBooks

Key finding: This work highlights the methodological challenges and importance of uncovering genealogical legacies among African American rainbow families, emphasizing the impact of historical erasures and fragmented records due to... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

'The Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Rainbow Families under EU Law'. NELFA Research Report.

by Alina Tryfonidou

2020, NELFA Research Report

Key finding: Through ethnographic inquiry into queer families in Poland, the study illustrates how lesbian parents employ complex reproductive strategies amid legal non-recognition and social stigmatization. It shows how intersecting... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

'The Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Rainbow Families under EU Law'. NELFA Research Report.

by Alina Tryfonidou

2020, NELFA Research Report

Key finding: Complementing the above, this work foregrounds intersectionality to analyze how Polish queer parents navigate layers of social privilege and disadvantage that influence their reproductive decisions. It contributes nuanced... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

'The Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Rainbow Families under EU Law'. NELFA Research Report.

by Alina Tryfonidou

2020, NELFA Research Report

Key finding: This report identifies the uneven legal landscape within EU member states regarding parental rights and recognition of rainbow families, highlighting serious cross-border legal challenges faced by such families when... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

keyboard_arrow_downShow more

2. What are the family formation pathways, parenting practices, and internal family dynamics of Rainbow Families across diverse social and cultural settings?

This theme focuses on the multifaceted pathways to parenthood and the lived practices within rainbow families, emphasizing diversity in family configurations, reproductive choice, and the processual nature of parenting. It draws on qualitative and ethnographic studies to illuminate how rainbow families redefine parenthood beyond traditional models, cope with systemic barriers, and engage in dynamic family displays and identities. This research area is critical for understanding the internal social realities that underpin rainbow family life and informing supportive social policies.

Unpacking categorizations in researching GBTIQ+ parents

by Carole Ammann (she/her)

2024, Sexualities

Key finding: Through 37 qualitative interviews and group discussions in the Netherlands and Switzerland, this study demonstrates that GBTIQ+ parenting is highly diverse and fluid, transcending conventional categorizations based on family... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

LGBTQ families and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Perceptions & politics

by Paraskevi (Voula) Zotali

2019, Anthropolitan - UCL Anthropology departmental magazine

Key finding: This essay examines the socio-political dynamics shaping LGBTQ individuals' access to assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), particularly focusing on the UK and Greece. It reveals entrenched cultural perceptions... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Nuclear Family

by Tetiana Sukach

2025, Springer eBooks

Key finding: Beyond genealogical research, this commentary emphasizes the vital role of uncovering ancestral legacies in fostering identity cohesion and cultural continuity within African American rainbow families. It illustrates how... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

'The Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Rainbow Families under EU Law'. NELFA Research Report.

by Alina Tryfonidou

2020, NELFA Research Report

Key finding: This ethnographic analysis elucidates how Polish queer families engage in parenting decision processes that reflect negotiations between legal limitations and personal aspirations. It documents diverse reproductive strategies... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Family display, family type, or community? Limitations in the application of a concept

by Julie Walsh

2022, Families, Relationships and Societies

Key finding: By empirically applying the 'family display' concept to migrant and Mennonite communities, the study reveals how family formation and presentation are temporally and culturally constructed practices. It underscores the... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

keyboard_arrow_downShow more

3. How do conceptualizations of racial and ethnic identity intersect with rainbow family experiences and social perceptions?

Research in this domain explores the entanglement of racial and ethnic identities with the lived realities and societal representations of rainbow families, particularly focusing on creolization, multigenerational identities, and historical legacies. This theme interrogates how rainbow family members construct identity amid racialized societal categories, how community histories influence family life, and the implications for broader inclusion and self-determination debates. It is central to nuanced understandings of intersectional identities and social justice implications for rainbow families.

Racialism and Representation in the Rainbow Nation

by Fileve Palmer

2022, SAGE Open

Key finding: This study critically examines South African 'Coloured' identities within the socio-political construct of the 'Rainbow Nation.' It utilizes photo-voice ethnography to reveal how personal histories, spatiality, and... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Regulating the Lives of Children: Kinship Care as a Cultural Resistance Strategy of the African American Community

by Tricia Goodley

2024, Social Welfare Policy: Regulation and Resistance Among People of Color

Key finding: This chapter argues that kinship care among African American families functions as a form of cultural resistance against systemic racial regulation within child welfare systems. It documents how this informal care preserves... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Nuclear Family

by Tetiana Sukach

2025, Springer eBooks

Key finding: This commentary identifies racial and historical erasures in genealogical records as significant barriers to reconstructing African American family legacies. It presents genealogical recovery as an act of identity affirmation... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

At the End of the Rainbow

by Hans Erik Stolten

2016

Key finding: The book further links South African ethnic and racial identities with social welfare and identity politics post-apartheid, revealing shifts from structural inequality frameworks to ethnic awareness and class consciousness.... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

keyboard_arrow_downShow more

All papers in Rainbow Families

Diversidad familiar, homoparentalidad y educación

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán

2011

El sistema educativo aún no ha asumido plenamente que no todos los padres y madres del alumnado son heterosexuales. Pese a las transformaciones que ha vivido esta institución, la familia nuclear heterosexual se sigue presentando como el... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Opciones sexuales y nuevos modelos familiares.

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

(Des)naturalización y elección: emergencias en la parentalidad y el parentesco de lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transexuales

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán and

2015

En los procesos de transformación de las estructuras familiares que han vivido las sociedades europeas, y específicamente la española, en las últimas décadas, las familias formadas por lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transexuales (LGBT) han... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Rights on the move : rainbow families in Europe : proceedings of the conference : Trento, 16-17 October 2014

by Alexander Schuster and

2014

These proceedings are the outcome of an international two-day conference that was held at the University of Trento on 16-17 October 2015. The focus is on the freedom of movement in the European Union, on reproductive rights for LGBTI... more

Table 3. Main examples of EU legislation on non-marital partners (WS = member state(s))

Table 4. Challenges of differentiations between same-sex and different-sex cohabitants
Until now, the European courts have not been willing to declare differentiations betweer
marriage and cohabitation to be discriminatory, except in very specific circumstances (see Table £
and Table 6). However, the ruling of the ECtHR on phone calls from prison suggests that this cour
may be willing to entertain further challenges to rules that exclude unmarried partners, providec
there are no strong counter arguments of the type acknowledged in the case on giving evidence.

Table 5. Challenges of differentiations between different-sex cohabitation and marriage

Table 6. Challenges of differentiations between same-sex cohabitation and marriage
Finally, there is a growing number of cases in which registered partners demanded to k
treated in the same way as married spouses (see Table 7). In the first of these cases the EU Court ¢
Justice still emphasized the incomparability of marriage and registered partnership (even in Swede!
where registered partnership was rather strong and quasi-marital). In more recent cases, howeve
the CJEU has emphasized that it depends on whether the actual legal situation of registered partne
and married spouses is comparable, and it suggested that — in the context of pension law — tt
situation of German registered life partners should indeed be considered as comparable to that «
spouses. It seems that this is also the approach of the ECtHR, but the two cases this Court has ha
to decide so far both concerned France, and the conclusion was that — as regards pensions and «
regards adoption — the legal situation of people in a PaCS (pacte civil de solidarité) is not similar t
marriage.24

This somewhat limited judicial harvest (which echoes the often slow, hesitant or limited
developments in national and EU legislation, see Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) seems to contrast
with the more general and quite inclusive language that is often used by the ECtHR in the very same
judgments. The Court has repeatedly recognized, for example, that the right to respect for private
life encompasses the ‘right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings’.”° It has
ruled that non-marital partnerships are covered also by the right to respect for family life,2® and that
this includes same-sex partnerships.’ It has mentioned ‘the fact that there is not just one way or
one choice when it comes to leading one’s family or private life’,2? and it is aware of the ‘rapid
evolution of social attitudes towards same-sex couples’.”? It has acknowledged that ‘the consensus
among European States in favour of assimilating same-sex relationships to heterosexual
relationships has undoubtedly strengthened’ (since 2001),?° and that a ‘growing tendency to include

jy}

same-sex couples in the notion of “family”’ is also reflected in EU legislation.*4 The Court has
stressed the ‘importance of granting legal recognition to de facto family life’,?? and it has held that
‘same-sex couples are just as capable as different-sex couples of entering into stable committed

relationships’ and that consequently they are ‘in a relevantly similar situation to a different-sex

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

From intentional community to ecovillage: tracing the Rainbow movement in Spain

by Pablo Alonso González and

2018, GeoJournal

The Rainbow is a global community that emerged with the hippie movement in the 1960s. Although it originated and largely developed in the USA, it soon expanded to Europe. Due to the political context in Spain, the Rainbow was weak there... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

(Homo) sexualidad y familia: cambios y continuidades al inicio del tercer milenio

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán

2009, Política y Sociedad

Las prácticas, discursos y demandas individuales y colectivas de las personas que mantienen relaciones homosexuales están generando importantes transformaciones en las concepciones de la familia en España. Los cambios se producen... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

White Paper. Rights on the Move - Rainbow Families in Europe

by Neža Kogovšek Šalamon

This White Paper is one of the results of a project entitled “Rights on the Move – Rainbow Families in Europe” which is supported by the European Commission within the framework of Fundamental Rights and Citizenship funding programme. The... more

In the field of adoption, two issues are of particular importance. The firs one is legal recognition of decisions of adoption in one Member State that have been issued by courts in another Member State, while the second one is access to an adoption procedure in one Member State by oartners who are nationals of another Member State.

ART® or surrogacy where two same-sex partners would be registered as (intended and legal) par- ents, judicial decisions granting parental rights tc children born with surrogacy or adoption decisions in cases of second-parent adoption performed by the partner of the child’s biological parent. Recogni- tion of such decisions has already been discussed above in section Ill.3. It should be stressed again that in these cases non-recognition due to public policy reasons could and did take place,®? which im- portantly affects the rights of all children concernec in addition to the parental rights of their parents. they are provided for remuneration, fall within the competence of the EU. However, apart from this fact this does not mean that the EU has any competence in expanding access to ART and sur- rogacy within the Member States to groups that are now excluded, including same-sex partners.

86 Jlirgen Romer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Case C 147/08 at paragraph 180 (May 10th, 2011). 87 Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientatior COM/2008/0426 final — Not published in the Official Journal].

4 In cases of intestacy, registered and unregistered same-sex partners should be treated the same as oppo- site-sex spouses or co-habiting part- ners, respectively. That is to say, if the laws of a member state grant, for ex- ample, the right of continued tenancy to surviving opposite-sex common law partners or dependent domiciliaries, that same right should be extended to unregistered same-sex partners. Similarly, this provision does not affect in any way the arguments that the law that is most fa- vourable for the partner should apply. Regard- less of which law applies it does not affect the civil status of the partner in any way.

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Derivas y tensiones en la materialización de la utopía. Etnografía al Movimiento Arcoíris en Chile

by Leonardo Cancino

El caso del Movimiento Arcoíris en Chile permite ilustrar en dos ámbitos, los significados atribuidos a la naturaleza y las formas que adquiere la acción colectiva contemporánea, las derivas y tensiones que se presentan al intentar... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Zusammenschau der Forschung zu ‘Regenbogenfamilien’. In: Regenbogenfamilien.ch, 2021. 1-14.

by YV E . Nay

2021

Überblick über bestehende Forschungsstränge Eine Zusammenschau der Forschungsergebnisse zu ‚Regenbogenfamilien' zeigt, dass Studien bereits seit den 1980er Jahren bestehen. Bis in die 1990er Jahre werden dabei hauptsächlich Familien... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Families of Choice in Poland. Family Life of Non-heterosexual Persons

by Agata Stasinska and

We are pleased to announce the publication of the report Families of Choice in Poland. Family Life of Non-heterosexual Persons prepared by Prof. Joanna Mizielińska, Marta Abramowicz, and Agata Stasińska. In the quantitative part of... more

Knowledge about relationship in the family When we look at these results it is possible to notice that the relatives of daughters knew about their relationships much more often than the relatives of sons. This relation was not influenced by the age of the respondents. It is also worth noting that the higher the age of the respondent, the more relatives knew about their same-sex relationships.

JOANNA MIZIELINSKA MARTA ABRAMOWICZ AGATA STASINSKA

Chart 2. Participation of couples in the study - whether both partners or only one took the poll (n=3038) There were slightly more women (56%) than men (44%) in the sample. The ques- tionnaire included the option “other gender”, which was selected by 0.5% respondents (16 people in total). One can conclude from the descriptions that this option was usually selected by transgender persons. Due to the very small number of such respondents it was not possible to carry out separate analyses concerning this particular group. Conse-

hart 1. Division of respondents according to data collection method (n=3038')

Chart 3. Division of respondents by gender (n=3038) It is worth mentioning here that part of the transgender respondents did not describe their gender as “other” as it is indicated in chart 4, illustrating the number of transgender people or persons with a transgender past’ in the sample (1.2%, 37 persons). This is likely because such persons identify with the gender they have always perceived as theirs and they do not describe themselves as belonging to the category of “other” gender. The number of transgender people or persons with a transgender past who took the

Age vs. place of residence before adulthood

A similar, statistically significant difference appeared between age and place of res- idence up to adulthood. The youngest respondents (18-25 age bracket) were the largest group (40%) among the respondents living in the country and towns up to 100 thousand inhabitants. The difference most probably results from the fact that it is much easier for non-heterosexual persons to become independent and start a family in the more anony- mous and less conservative big city environment.

Chart 13. Characteristics of the respondents in reference to education (n=3037) Another variable that characterises our sample is involvement in various LGBT sommunity activities. Involvement was understood very broadly, e.g. as participation in he Equality Parade or other demonstrations, signing a petition, working as a volunteet for an LGBT organisation, or providing financial support to such an organisation or any <ind of action aimed at changing the current situation of non-heterosexual and trans- sender persons. As it turned out, 38% of respondents declared such involvement while 52% did not show any activity in the field. Women proved more involved than men: the lifference was 8 percentage points.

The respondents were asked to describe their status. The largest group of respond- ents worked (72%) while 36% were students. The number of respondents who both worked and studied was 13.8% of the whole sample. One person in ten was a home- maker (11%), while 8% were unemployed. A mere 3% looked after their children Chart 16. Support of activities for LGBT persons and sex and age (only those involved) (n=2944)

The age difference proved significant in this issue, but only in the case of wom- en. Among the youngest female respondents 36% were involved in an activity for LGBT persons, among the oldest (age group 41-50) it was a half. There is a similar tendency among men — the older, the more involved — but it was statistically nonsignif- icant. The connection between activism and the declared material status proved to be nonsignificant. Chart 15. Support for activities for LGBT persons and sex (n=3033)

Consequently, the respondents represented all of the occupation categories, although lue to overrepresentation of people with secondary and higher education the sample vas dominated by specialists. We compared the results of our study to Diagnoza Spo- eczna. We drew respondents of the same sex, age, and place of residence from their epresentative sample. In this way we obtained two sets of data that could be compared. lowever, the samples are not fully comparable as our study was conducted differently han Czapinski and Panek’s. Chart 18. Respondent occupations - only the respondents who provided their occupa: tion (n=2141)

Religiousness was yet another issue touched upon in the study. The respondents were asked to what religion, church, or faith they felt attached to. Over half of the re- spondents (54%) felt no connection with any religion or church. The greatest number among those who felt such a connection indicated Roman Catholicism (41%). Less than 4% of respondents declared another confession. Most of these respondents opted for other Christian denominations (1.8%), such as Protestantism (1%) or Russian Ortho- dox (0.4%). A similar number of respondents indicated other religions with Christian roots (i.e. Jehova’s Witnesses) or unspecified type of Christianity. 1.2% of respondents declared Buddhism as their religion while 0.3% chose Judaism. Other respondents opt- ed for “other beliefs” (0.3%) or described themselves as non-denominational believers (0.2%). The sex of the respondents did not influence the answers to this question. However, in the study prepared by CBOS (2012b) on a representative sample 91.3% of respondents claimed to be Roman Catholics and only 4.2% of respondents were “non-believers. aconostics. atheists” Amono the remaining resnondents the most ni- The respondents were also asked to assess their financial situation. Their financial situation was good or very good in the opinion of three out of four respondents (76%). However, 15% of our respondents estimated their situation as rather bad or very bad. One respondent in ten was unable to evaluate their financial situation. The sex of the respondents did not influence the responses. However, it is worth noting that people in bad financial situations came mostly from smaller towns. The vast majority of respondents believed themselves to be well off. This is likely — ai ‘ae 1s a * ern ae

Chart 26. Earlier relationships with partners of the opposite sex vs. the sex of the re- spondent (n=3034)

Earlier relationships of partners of the opposite sex vs. respondents' sex

Former same-sex relationships The average length of the current relationship was 4 years. Half of the respondents were in relationships lasting for more than 3 years. The longest relationship lasted 42 years, while the shortest that qualified for the study was 6 months. Almost one respond- ent in five (19%) was in a relationship lasting for 2 years and 17% of respondents were in a relationship for less than a year. 7% of respondents claimed that they had been in a relationship for over a decade.

5 As it was already stated in the Introduction, the variable calculated for couples gives the average of the re- sponses of a couple so that they can be compared with the answers of people whose partners did not participate in the study.

Chart 30. Do you keep a pet? Each respondent could declare ownership of many pets so the percentage does not add up to 100 (n=3025)

Ways of getting together vs. sex The method of meeting partners depended on the age of the respondents, although it is important to state that this does not apply to the Internet which is almost as important for teenagers as it is for the people of 60 years or more. There are differences in the way people communicate outside of cyberspace. It is quite natural that the youngest respondents got to know each other at secondary school or in childhood. Meeting one’s significant other in a club appeared only in the responses of people up to 50 years of age. Respondents in the 60+ age bracket usually met at social gatherings.

Chart 35. How do you spend time with your partner? 3 things you do together the most often. Variable calculated for couples (n=2186)

Values and sense of happiness The respondents were asked what they considered to be a necessary condition for a happy life. The question was taken from Diagnoza Spoteczna. For the greatest number of respondents it was a successful relationship (78%), with health coming second (51%) and friends third (28%). The respondents also listed cheerfulness (24%), work (21%), money (20%), freedom and liberty (20%), and honesty (20%). Respondents chose belief in God, providence least often (2%). The attitude towards such a value as children was an important issue from the point of view of the subjects of our study. As it turned out the value was indicated by merely 5% of the respondents. Among these 5%, the vast ma- jority consisted of parents who are themselves a small minority among non-heterosex- uals in same-sex relationships. However, as same-sex parenthood is still rare and una- vailable for most homosexuals, the respondents did not consider this value as important. In the category “other” 0.8% of respondents listed self-fulfilment and values con- nected with personal development (e.g. achieving a state of inner peace, distance, great- We took a closer look at what kind of people preferred activities aimed at the re- lationship. This category was chosen most often by the youngest respondents (18-25 age bracket). After the 26th year the preference for these kinds of pastimes visibly de- creased. The number of people opting for sport activities and tourism increased with the age of the respondents: people in the 18-29 age bracket spent their free time this way much less often (59%) than people of 30 or more years, among whom 72% travelled or practised sports together.

The introductory results of the follow up of the study Families of choice including singles showed that couples were much happier than singles. Regardless of their sex, singles responded that they were very happy (6%), quite happy (44%), or rather unhap- py (41%). 9% of the single respondents described themselves as unhappy. PEE LL RLAID SAREE RALA AER: GREEN AE fey RE SOR Ne ee AR Relea OR At ESR ATE NE Reed OOM fio The respondents were also asked a question about their perception of their own hap- piness. The question was taken from Diagnoza Spoteczna. As many as 91% of the re- spondents considered themselves happy. Out of the group, 31% chose the answer “very happy” and 60% chose “quite happy”, while 8% of the respondents considered them- selves “not too unhappy” and only 1% “unhappy”. Women turned out happier than men. Age, place of residence, and the length of the relationship did not influence these results.

Chart 54. Holidays and celebrations vs. age. Only statistically significant data. Variable calculated for couples (n=2117) Invitation to family celebrations with the partner may be an adequate measure of he recognition of a relationship by the family of origin. As it has been stated above, nly 44% of respondents spend religious holidays with their partners. The answer to the ollowing question shows that over half of the respondents were not invited to important amily celebrations as a couple. Many of them must make the difficult choice to spend he religious holidays away from their significant others with the family of origin, with vhom the relations may be strained.

Formalising the relationship vs. sex If there was such a possibility in Poland, as many as 75% of respondents would like to legitimize their current relationship. Only 5% of them were decidedly against any for- malisation, and one respondent in five did not know yet what decision they would make. The results clearly indicate that there is a great need of some form of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

The respondents who declared a lack of willingness to legitimise their relationships were asked to provide the reasons for their decision (the answer to the open question Chart 59. Willingness to formalize the relationship vs. sex

Reasons of reluctance to formalize the relationship

Chart 62. Have you experienced any problems due to the fact that you are not ina legally recognised relationship such as marriage? Open question. Variable calculated for couples (n=444) Many respondents described various, often quite dramatic situations:

Desirable regulations On the whole, civil partnership was preferred regardless of sex and age of th respondents. Only the oldest group was less interested, especially elderly women. A: opposed to men, they expected more permanent regulations, i.e. marriage. They wer« also less interested in a PACS-like agreement. Differences are noticeable in the cass of religious marriage. In the youngest group women were decidedly more interested ir such a solution than men. A civil wedding was also more appealing for women (76% than for men (63%). The difference was noticeable in all age brackets, although th« greatest support (80%) was in the 18-25 bracket. The preference for civil marriage decreased with age: among the 18-25 years old the support was at 80%, among thos« aged 26-30 it was 71%, among those aged 31-40 65%, and among those aged 41-5( 60%. A similar tendency was noticeable in the case of those who preferred religiou: marriage. 17% of supporters were among the youngest residents, while in the olde: group (31-50) only 10%.

Couples living apart were asked to estimate the distance between their places of res- dence. A large number lived fairly close to one another, less than 10 kilometres (39%). n one case out of four the distance was between 10 and 50 kilometres and in another 0% it was between 50 and 100 kilometres. The remaining couples (27%) lived at least 00 kilometres away from one another and 4% of the respondents lived abroad. Sex did ot influence the responses. Chart 71. How often do you get in touch? Only the respondents who claimed they did not live with their partner. Variable calculated for couples (n=747)

Chart 74 below clearly shows that if the time from the first encounter to moving in is short (a few days or weeks), men are more likely to start living together than women. If a relationship has lasted for several months up to a year, it was more probable that two women would start living together. Among the couples who have been in a relationship for over two years but still lived apart, men were more likely to move in together.

Time after which the couple lived together vs. sex Sex life

Sex was somewhat more important for women than for men. No differences related to the duration of a relationship were noticed. Below we present the results divided according to sex and age for couples and single respondents of the study Families of choice, compared with the results of Izdebski’s study conducted on a representative sample of Poles. Sexually active heterosexuals aged 18 to 59 were selected from Izdeb- ski’s sample. They were compared with the analogical sample from Families of choice. All further comparisons were calculated for these two samples. TO i a gi i a i a Oe EEE EE RS URI A es eee The comparison shows that, generally speaking, it was a little more important for the respondents in Families of choice than for the representative group of heterosexuals. Among the non-heterosexual persons it was more important for women than for men. However, among heterosexual persons it was the other way round: sex was more impor- tant for men than for women.

Chart 79. Model of relationship as far as exclusivity in sexual relations is concerned - me only as there were no notable differences in the responses of women (n=1206)

There is a popular conviction concerning the extraordinary frequency of sexual acts in gay relationships and the small number of sexual acts in lesbian relationships. The study confirmed the existence of a difference between the respective frequencies of sexual intercourse between men and women. Men were indeed more likely to have sex more often, but the difference did not exceed a few percentage points. The most often selected responses fell between 2 to 3 times a month and 2 to 3 times a week. Chart 80. How many people have you had sex with in your life? Provide the number of all your partners regardless of their sex. Due to major differences between the sexes the results are presented with the division into sexes (n=2835)

Frequency of sexual intercourse vs. sex The responses were compared with the results of the study Families of choice on non-heterosexual singles and the results of Izdebski’s study on heterosexual people (however, we do not know the ratio of people in relationships and singles in the sam- ple). Non-heterosexual singles declared they had sexual relations the least often. The majority both of single women (approx. 70%) and single men (approx. 60%) either did not have sex during last year or had sex a few times during the year. More heterosexual persons than non-heterosexual couples engaged in sex once a week or more often. On average, women had sex less often than men but heterosexual women did it more often than lesbians and bisexual women living in relationships. The frequency of sexual inter- course decreased with age in all groups.

The respondents were also asked about their opinion concerning the division of du- : what situation would be perfect for the relationship in their opinion.'* The vast ma- ity responded that the best option was when two people spent more or less the same e on their professional work and when they looked after their home to an equal de- e (86%). 8% chose the model in which one partner worked more, and in consequence other dealt more with the domestic chores. Only 2.5% opted for complete division, a del in which one partner worked professionally and the other looked after their home. Only 3.3% of couples decided that none of the provided answers fit their preferred y of dividing chores and chose the option ”another situation”, which gave them an portunity to describe their own best model. The majority of these responses (2.4% of respondents) consisted of statements that the perfect division must fit the possibilities | needs of each partner and their current situation (e.g. “The best way is to develop ystem that suits both partners and which does not necessarily have to be based on ial division of time and effort’; “There is no “ideal model”, everything depends on ferences of the partners”). The category also included descriptions of the division of res based on a variable, flexible attitude. Chart 83. Domestic chores vs. sex, the chart includes only the category ,,together or tak- ing turns”, only for the statistically significant data. Variable calculated for couples

Chart 92. Do you have a child/children for whom you are a biological (or other) parent: (n=2853)

Chart 94. Why don’t you have children? Open question (n=2147) Risa SRN at Nin ytneTe re The fact that as many as 30% of the respondents do not want to have children be- cause non-heterosexual relationships cannot have children as such (19%) or due to in- tolerance and discrimination (11%) seems to confirm the strength of the conservative discourse. The discourse stresses the fact that the only way for same-sex couples to have children is adoption (i.e. they cannot have biological children), which is illegal in Poland, and that raising a child in such a family would be harmful for the child. The respondents seem to make their decision more or less consciously, influenced by the fear of raising children in such an environment, and they do not see any chances of finding a solution in Poland.

Women - the role of the child's father Chart 99. How do you see the role of the person who will be the biological father of your and your partner’s child? Only women who intend to have children (n=392) Most women would be rather against the biological father of the child/sperm donor participating in the raising of the child and the family life of the couple. More than half (57%) would like the father to remain anonymous, and another 13% would agree to let the father get to know the child but should not participate in its upbringing. 18% of women would be willing to raise the child together with the biological father, treated as a father or as an uncle. 9% of women considered adoption.

Men - the role of the child's mother Chart 100. How would you like to become a parent and how do you see the role of the biological mother? Only men who intend to have children (n=63) A similar tendency towards exclusivity in parenthood was revealed among men. The same percentage of men as women (57%) would like to raise a child with their partners, and 32% considered adoption. 8% of men would like to raise the child together with its mother/ mothers (as a parent), and a mere 2% would accept a limited contact with the child (as an uncle). The same number of respondents would like to be an anonymous sperm donor.

Chart 103. The age of the respondent’s children (n=285)

Almost 15% of the children lived on their own (they were of age) or with their own family. In 13% of cases the selected answer was “another situation”. We have indicated six categories on the basis of these 38 responses. 16 responses were included in the cat- egory “the child lives with its biological parent who is my partner but without me (e.g. “with parents, I live alone”, “it lives with my partner and her parents”)”; these answers were given from the point of view of a social parent. 13 responses in total were included in the second category, “the child lives with both its biological parents of whom the respondent is one (e.g. “I live with my wife all the time”, “with me and my husband”)”. The third category included 7 responses describing various systems according to which the child lives in turns with each of the parents (e.g. “more or less half a week with me, and half a week with its father who lives on his own”, “alternate care”).

Fourteen responses were included in the category “another situation”. Most of the cases dealt with such a relation with a child in which the respondent who was in a re- lationship with the child’s parent formed an emotional bond with the child and yet for some reason refused to call oneself a social parent. The relation was described in a vari- ety of ways: “uncle”, “child of my friend who raises it on her own”, “I am her mamma’s colleague and the coolest pal”, “informal adoption’, or “I treat it as my own child”. Six responses presented situations in which the respondent was not a parent but an actual uncle, sister, or godmother. As the term “social parent” is not very popular in Polish while social parents often fulfil a variety of roles in the lives of the children they raise, we decided to include these responses in the present analysis. PIM se eee a a a. gle 2s Ae RAM 1s Selena ala es. BRK hmmm The next question dealt with the relation between the parent and the child, i.e. wheth- er the respondent was the biological parent, the social parent, etc. A similar chart is presented above. Consequently, the results are the same. They are, however, presented from the point of view of the children (i.e. for how many children in the sample the re- spondent is a biological parent, social parent, etc.). For 73% of children the respondent was a biological parent and for 18% he/she was a social parent. Five respondents (1.6%) were married to the other parent of the child. Ten respondents were adoptive parents.

The study included 23 cases of situations different from the above. The category opted child” proved the largest with 8 responses such as “I decided to bring up a child oster family”, “I raised an orphan”, and “my mother died so I adopted my brother”. sponses belonged to yet another category: the child had been conceived before the rent relationship started but in another same-sex couple, e.g. “the decision to have hild was made in my former homosexual relationship”, “it was conceived during earlier same-sex relationship”. Two responses mentioned children raised in current erosexual relationship as the respondents were still married. Other cases could not be luded in any categories, e.g. “I was asked”, “family problems”, “it was my choice”. It happens that the decision to have a child is not taken jointly. Consequently, the sondents were asked who made the decision in their case. There was no statistically 1ificant difference in the responses due to sex. In more than half of all cases (53%) decision was made together with current or former partner and in almost one case of five (19%) the decision depended not on the respondent but on the partner. In 14% pregnancy was not planned and in 12% it was the exclusive decision of the respond- _In the remaining 2% (6 responses) the described circumstance differed from the ions in the questionnaire, e.g. “after my mother’s death I became my brother’s legal rdian”, “the pregnancy was socially conditioned, it was the seemly thing to do”, o1 y husband forced me to have sex”. Chart 107. When did you become a parent? (n=279)

Chart 108. Who made the decision to have a baby? (n=277) Parents were also asked about the child’s relation with its other biological parent. As the question was phrased differently depending on the sex of the respondents, we present the results separately for women and men. The biggest number responded that their children knew their other biological parents and had close relations with them: among the children of the female respondents it was over a half (52%), and in the case of male respondents almost three quarters (72%). Over a quarter of the children of the female respondents (27%) knew their fathers but did not have close emotional ties with them. 11% of mothers responded that their children did not know their fathers as they were anonymous sperm donors or the mother did not want the child to stay in touch with them. In the ¢ case e of 7 7™% of children the father had died. ,, a ee ee ee Ta ot 0 yo, ee, oe

Chart 110. What are your relations with your child and its biological mother? Only men (n=71)

The following question concerned the respondent’s active participation in the child’s upbringing. It served as a kind of filter: only the persons involved in the process of

The respondents were asked who they raised the child with. Parenthood of women and men differed greatly. More than two out of three women (68%) raised their children with the active participation of their partner, a social mother; in 44% of cases without any participation of the biological father, and in 24% of cases with the biological fa- ther. 7% of children were raised only by their mothers. In the cases of 10% of children, although their mothers were in a same-sex relationship, they raised their children only with their fathers. Chart 111. Do you take an active part in your child’s upbringing? (total n=276)

Due to various situations of the children of the respondents, the latter were asked how they shared the duties connected with raising the child in their care. The question was adapted from the studies of Anna Titkow on unpaid women labour (Titkow, Duch-Krzys- toszek, Budrowska, 2004).”° The persons looking after the children do the majority of the activities together, especially taking walks, providing entertainment, playing with, and baby-sitting. Contacts with teachers in kindergarten/school were an exception; this duty always fell on one person, the biological parent. It was the same in case of any issues connected with the health of the child, and the biological parent was also more involved in issues connected with this sphere. These two spheres were the most often dealt with by the biological parent, probably because of their ability of legal representation of the child in contacts with educational or health care institutions as well as because of the difficulties involved in revealing the character of the family in contacts with such institutions. Chart 112. Who do you raise your child with? (women n=183, men n=49) e.g. “together with a friend although she makes the most important decision concerning our son”. The category “respondent has a very limited influence, the child is brought up mainly by its biological parent” included four responses, e.g. “the child is brought up mainly by its mother”. Three responses made up the category “the child is raised by somebody else”, such as “the child is brought by its grandparents”. Two responses were included in the category “the child is brought up by the respondent together with its family of origin” such as “the parents that I live with”. The remaining respondents did not justify their choice of “another situation” in any way.

Addressing the partner of the child's biological parent An important issue for children brought up by non-heterosexual persons was their knowledge concerning the fact that their mother or father was in a same-sex relation- ship. Consequently, the respondents were asked whether their children were aware of the fact. Two children out of three (67%) knew that their parent/s were in a same-sex relationship. In 17% of cases the respondents were not certain whether the child un- derstood the character of their relationship. In the opinion of the respondents the same percentage of children did not know that their parent/s were in a non-heterosexual rela- tionship. No differences due to sex of the respondents were recorded.

Plans to tell the child about the relationship

The persons who responded “no” or “I do not know” in the previous question were asked whether they intended to tell the child about their relationship. Only 13% of the respondents claimed that they had no such plans, 45% were not sure, and 43% claimed that they wanted to tell the child about their relationship.

The respondents who claimed that their children knew about the character of their relationship were asked when they learned and from whom. In the majority of cases it happened when the children were in elementary/junior high school or kindergarten (61%). 17% of the children knew even earlier, before they turned 3. One in five learned of it late, after they turned 16. Only 4 respondents chose a response which was not in- cluded in the questionnaire. These answers referred to the length of the relationship, e.g. “when we decided to move in together”. Chart 116. When do you intend to tell your child about your relationship? Attention! Very small sample (n=30)

When did the child learn about the relationship

Chart 118. Who told your child that you and your partner were in a relationship? (n=139) Chart 119. How did your child get to know that you and your partner were in a relation: ship? Describe the circumstances. Open question (n=126)

Circumstances in which the child learned about the relationship

Chart 120. How did your child react when it learned that you and your partner were ina relationship? (n=140)

Who knows about the child's family situation Families of choice in Poland do not have any legal possibility of securing the con- tacts of a social parent with a child. Formally, the former is a stranger and he/she cannot make any decisions concerning the child. The respondents were asked whether they had ever tried to arrange the issue of contacts of the child with the social parent in case of Chart 121. Who in your environment knows about your child’s family situation? Value for “teachers at kindergarten/school” given for children aged 3 to 19. The percentage does not add up to 100 as the respondents could choose more than one answer (n=223)

There were 42 responses to the open question. In 18 cases the respondents signed some form of a written agreement in which the social parent was authorised to take care of their partner’s child: deed or last will (e.g. “We are thinking about my partner including in her last will a clause in which I would be the person to adopt our child’’). In 6 cases the respondents presented their plans which would result in the social partner obtaining parental rights within the existing legal system. These plans included the fu- ture marriage of the social and biological parents or adoption. In 8 cases the respondents declared they had a plan but it had not been formalised. A number of respondents quoted informal agreements with other relatives, such as “My Mother has all the information and instructions, I know she will do exactly as we want”. In 7 cases the respondents be- lieved that keeping good relations with the child was more important than formal issues (e.g. “We shall stay in touch against all odds. The bond with another person is the most important thing”). Finally, three persons admitted that the matter was complicated and at the time of the study they did not know how to solve it. Another issue included in the study was the frequency of the child’s contacts with

The respondents were also asked whether the fact of having children resulted in social exclusion or reluctance among their acquaintances. Generally speaking, the re- spondents did not have any such experiences. A small number of them experienced reluctance among their heterosexual acquaintances (in the case of approx. 11% of chil- dren), regardless of whether the acquaintances did or did not have children of their own. Even less often the respondents felt rejected by their childless homosexual acquaint- ances (7%), and they sporadically (2%) experienced rejection from their gay or lesbian acquaintances who had children of their own. off’). Finally, 3% of respondents confessed their helplessness in the matter (e.g. I just don’t know what to do”).

The respondents were asked why they did not maintain such contacts. There were no differences between the responses of men and women. Three out of four (75%) stated that the lack of such families in their immediate environment was the biggest obstacle, one in five (21%) that they did not feel any such need, and 16% did not know how to look for such families. A small group pointed out to lack of time and failure of such attempts in the past.

Chart 20. What religion, church, faith do you feel attached to? (n=3031)

chart 34. The way of getting together and age. Variable calculated for couples (n=2224) The next question — ways of spending free time — was an open question. Respond- ents were free to answer it in the way they saw fit. Each respondent could provide up to three forms of spending free time. Analysis of their answers resulted in eight different categories. Chart 35 shows the distribution of frequency of different forms of spending free time organised in such a way as if it had been a multiple choice question. Sport or tourism turned out to be the most popular pastimes (65%). The category

Table 1. Comparison of the ratio of happy persons (responses very happy and quite happy) divided according to their sex in the studies Families of choice and Diagnoza Spoteczna

Table 2. Who do you turn to first when you need help in the following situations? Multiple choice question (n=2991). Category partner calculated for couples (n=2187) Women turned to their mothers during sickness, in search of understanding and com- fort, and when in financial trouble more often than men. However, men were more likely to ask their friends for financial assistance; in practical matters they turned to their partners. fort, and when in financial trouble more often than men. However, men were more

Table 3. Comparison of average responses to the question concerning the importance of sex in life (answers to the question ,,How important is sex in your life?”) on a scale 1 to 6, where 1 stands for ,completely insignificant” and 6 for ,very important”, between non-heterosex- ual persons (couples and singles) from the study Families of choice and heterosexual persons from the study by Zbigniew Izdebski. The results were divided according to sex and age

Table 4. Comparison of average responses to the question concerning the satisfaction with sex life (answers to the question ,What is your assessment of your sex life?”) on a scale 1 to 5, where 1 stands for ,very bad” and 5 for ,very good” ‘2, between non-heterosexual per- sons (couples and singles) from the study Families of choice and heterosexual persons from the study by Zbigniew Izdebski. The results were divided according to sex and age The respondents were also asked to define the model of their relationship as far as exclusivity in sexual relations was concerned. Due to major differences resulting from the sex of the respondents, the results are presented separately for women and for men. The vast majority of female relationship were monogamous (95%). In the case of men it was a little more than two out of three relationships (68%). The remaining group had sex with other people, either with their partners’ approval (19%) or without it (7%), or indi- cated sex with another person in partner’s presence (threesome) as a separate form (this category was selected almost exclusively by men). The need to open their relationship increased with age and length of the relationship in the case of men. In case of women it was related only to the length of the relationship. Anart fen colactingeg an ontinn fram the miectinnnaire fac nreacantad in chart T7QY

Table 6. Who does the following chores on a daily basis in your relationship? The answers “does not apply” were omitted. Only the respondents who declared they lived together. Variable calculated for couples

Table 8. Who in your relationship is responsible for the following matters when the child is in your care? Data calculated for couples (n=60). Answers “does not apply” were excluded The results of the study were compared to those from Titkow’s study. The value of the comparison is quite limited because the authors of Titkow’s study worked or a representative sample of Poles. Furthermore, in a heterosexual couple it is easier tc indicate differences in the division of house chores or child raising when responses ot men and women are compared. In a same-sex couple there is no such possibility. The amount of “together” responses is still quite significant. The huge differences are visible at first glance. The respondents in Titkow’s study, both female and male, agreed that the vast majority of duties connected with child raising belonged to women. In 80-90% ot cases it was the woman who tended to the children’s needs. Only such duties as taking the child to kindergarten/school or organising entertainment such as movies or visits tc a fun-fair were left less often (approx. 60-70%) left to women. iawn 7 ses. eae oe ek, eer be ae ee ee cere ee EEA Ae Se we Peeve.

Table 9. Who is responsible for covering the cost of the following expenses? If the costs are covered together check all the persons who cover them. The percentage does not add up to 100 as the respondents could choose more than one answer (n=223) Another issue analysed in the study was the way children addressed their social par- ents. In this question the responses of biological parents were analysed and the question was how their children addressed their parents’ same-sex partners. Most often (61% of cases) children addressed their social parent by their first name. Almost one in three (31%) chose “aunt” or “uncle”, 9% “mom’s friend” or “dad’s friend”, and 6% ,,mom/

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Sex and the family: intersections between family, gender, reproduction and same-sex sexuality in Spain

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán

2011

FIGURE 1: PERCENTAGE OF MARRIAGES PERFORMED IN 2009 BY SEX AND NATIONALITY OF THE SPOUSES. Source: Author’s calculations based on data published on the National Statistics Insti- tute’s website.

FIGURE 3: AGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A COUPLE BY SEX OF THE MEMBERS Source: Graphic based on the data of the 2001 Census published on the website of the Na- tional Institute of Statistics chudren ever tall sick and they need to know thelr genetic lineage, the situation could be easily resolved, as the donor was her wife’s brother. Same-sex couples are also expected to contribute certain innovations to the field of sexuality. For the majority of gays and lesbians, reproduc- tion has to be achieved without sex. Therefore, sex is here inextricably no longer linked to reproduction but rather to pleasure, love, and communi- cation. Rubin (1984) places non-heterosexual people down near the bot- tom of the hierarchies of sexuality. As they are already marginalised in terms of sexual norms, this position could enable them to potentially overcome the constraints of a normative sexuality centred on procre- ation and restricted by characterisations like coitus-centrality, ageism, coupling, monogamy, and others. Nevertheless, same-sex relationships do not necessarily escape the social pressures to imitate the more preva- lent norms of sex: heterosexual, coital, in partner relationships, monoga- mous, performed at home, non-commercial, for love, and between mem- bers of the same generation (Rubin 1984). However, some new patterns can be found among the participants of the study. For example, there appears to be a greater age difference between homosexual partners than between heterosexual ones (see Figure 3). This variation could be explained by the fact that the main aim of sexual relations within homo- sexual relationships is not reproduction. Therefore the age constrictions related to fertility that are placed on heterosexual relationships are not relevant to non-heterosexual pairs.

TABLE 1: NUMBER OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES BY YEAR Source: Author’s calculations based on data published on the National Statistics Institute’s website (http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_mnp.htm). The legalisation of same-sex marriage provides some insight into the re- ality of same-sex couples in the form of official statistics, collected yearly through civil registries. However, obviously not all couples marry, whether hetero- or homosexual. The next census, in 2011 will provide statistics on the number of unmarried couples living together. The National Institute of Statistics reports that in the first four and a half years since the law was passed 15,381 same-sex couples have married. Of these marriages, 10,318 were between two men and 5,063 were between two women.

There is a whole array of options for non-heterosexual people who de- cide to pursue reproduction. They have to face a series of important deci- sions: if they will seek reproduction individually or as a couple; if the child will be biological or adopted; if it is biological, will it be conceived through coitus, insemination in a clinic, or self-insemination (“home-in- semination”); whether the donor will be anonymous or someone the would-be parents know and, in either case, if the legal and social pater- nity of the third person will be recognised or not. FIGURE 2: MODES OF ACCESS TO MATERNITY AND PATERNITY

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Qu(e)er zum Recht? Normalisierungsprozesse gleich- und trans*geschlechtlicher Elternschaft durch Recht. In: Fampra. Die Praxis des Familienrechts, 2013, 14 (2). 366-394

by YV E . Nay

2013, Fampra. Die Praxis des Familienrechts

Zusammenfassung: Der Beitrag behandelt familiale Existenzweisen von Lesben, Schwulen, Bisexuellen und Trans*Personen (LGBTQ) vor dem Hintergrund bestehender rechtlicher Regelungen und deren politischer Anfechtung. Anhand empirischer... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Same-sex couples in Spain: Historical, contextual and symbolic factors

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán

2004, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

conceiving a familiar relation with no need for cohabitation, but simply on the existence of a sexual-affective relation- but because it includes inheritance and adoption rights too. Five out of sex of the autonomous regions that have not yet presented legislation on same-sex couples have been in recent years ruled by the conservative PP (Cantabria, Castile-Leon, Galicia, Murcia and Rioja); and 1 (Castile-La Mancha), by socialist PSOE. Therefore, in Spain progressive and nationalist parties are those that seem more prone to respond to the demands of the LGBT movement.

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Espagne. Le mariage homosexuel au pays de la famille

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán

2008

La famille espagnole est passée de la conception catholique (au niveau juridique et culturel) qui prévalait sous la dictature franquiste aux transformations juridiques issues de la Constitution démocratique de 1978. Ces modifications... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

‚Not Gay as in Happy, but Happy as in Family’ – Affektive Politiken nationaler Sentimentalität. In: Baier, A./Binswanger, C./Häberlein, J./Nay, Y. E./Zimmermann, A. (Hg_innen). Affekt und Geschlecht – Eine einführende Anthologie. Zaglossus Verlag: Wien 2014. 137-158

by YV E . Nay

2014, Affekt und Geschlecht – Eine einführende Anthologie

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

FAMILIES OF NON-HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE WITH CHILDREN: AMONG OLD ANSWERS AND NEW QUESTIONS

by Monika Puszyk

The aim of this paper is to present and analyse the available data concerning the situation of children of nonheterosexual people and to discuss selected areas of LGB parenting. The article enables an identification of issues related to... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Negotiations Between Possibilities and Reality: Reproductive choices of Families of Choice in Poland

by Joanna Mizielińska

2019, European Journal of Women's Studies

Lack of recognition of queer families in Poland impacts their daily experiences in a distinct manner. However, the importance of geo-location and Central and Eastern European perspective has been marginalized in Western studies on queer... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Ajallis-tilallinen queer-näkökulma lesboäitien ja naisparien perhesuhteisiin ( A Spatial and Temporal Queer Point of View to the Family Relations of Lesbian Mothers and Female Couples)

by Paula Kuosmanen

2008, Sevón, Eija ja Notko, Marianne (eds.) Perhesuhteet puntarissa. Palmenia-sarja. Helsinki; Helsinki University Press.

"Presentation of the book in Finnish: http://www.gaudeamus.fi/parisuhdeteollisuus-on-2000-luvun-mediailmio-tiedote/
"

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

LGBTQ families and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Perceptions & politics

by Paraskevi (Voula) Zotali

2019, Anthropolitan - UCL Anthropology departmental magazine

This essay seeks to examine the socio-political intersection of LGBTQ engagement in family building and ARTs by critically examining the relevant academic literature, but also drawing information from community reports and state actors.

‘This baby will never be theirs’: Perceptions and politics of LGBTQ families & Assisted Reproductive Technologies ‘All families equal—Rainbow Families’ —Protest over the LGBTQ foster bill in front of the Greek parliament, Athens, May 2018 adoption. These legal acts in coexistence resulted in the paradox that while a single gay man or woman is allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment regardless of their sexuality, the same person in a legally recognized civil union with his/her partner is not. During the discussion in Parliamen on the foster bill, Stella Belia, Chairwomat of ‘Oikogeneies Ouranio Tokso’ (Rainbow Families Greece) argued for second parent adoption: The first country to establish same-sex civic union was Denmark in 1989, and since then many European countries followed. Nonetheless, same-sex couples have the right of full ARTs access in just 13 countries and a number of US states, while many countries prohibit such use, including France (Eggert and Engeli, 2015). In the level of individual's right to reproduction, legal acts in many European and North American countries provide protection over discrimination based on sexual orientation. Even in these ‘progressive’ contexts though, the ethical debate of whether ART treatment must be made available to LGBTQ couples still prevails, on the grounds of concern for the welfare of intended offspring, despite ample opposing evidence. BRAN SION Bd PRA NE Er NE NN EAE Ee facing such social challenges. In the last decades, political focus on issues regarding LGBTQ marriage and family building has substantially increased as ARTs have contributed to the development of new forms of families. On the one hand, long- standing pressures and activist protests from LGBTQ communities demanded attention from politics and society; on the other hand, the increasing number of ‘rainbow’ families presented itself as a mere reality despite dominant societal norms. While in the past LGBTQ persons assumed that their relationships could not be reproductive (Imaz 2017), or if they sought parenthood, adoption and intercourse were the preferred routes, the younger generations are increasingly turning to ART. This is attributed to social and legal advances, particularly in the ‘Western’ context, allowing the ‘coming-out’ of LGBTQ persons at a much younger age as well as improved accessibility to ART.

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

'The Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Rainbow Families under EU Law'. NELFA Research Report.

by Alina Tryfonidou

2020, NELFA Research Report

Report arguing that the EU must require its Member States to provide cross-border legal recognition for rainbow families.

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Entrevista a Ellen Lewin

by José Ignacio Pichardo Galán

2008

Ellen Lewin es profesora de estudios de la mujer y de antropología social en la Universidad de Iowa (Estados Unidos). Comenzó su carrera como antropóloga con una investigación sobre madres lesbianas, cuyo trabajo de campo se alargó... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

You should/mustn’t be a mother: intersectionalities of gender and sexuality within non-heteronormative women families

by Gosia Kot

2018, Adeptus

In this paper I aim to illustrate the intersectionality of sexuality and gender within non-heteronormative women families with usage of intersectionality framework from the classical text of K. Crenshaw Mapping the margins:... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

'I Wouldn't Mind a Kid Playing Around the Kitchen Here' - ReproSoc Blog

by Marcin Smietana

2020, ReproSoc Blog

Recently my partner Alessandro and I had a chance to spend a few months in his old family house in the mountains of Abruzzo in Italy. Ironically, this became possible due to Covid, as all my work at the university went online. And only... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

'My guys and I are Facebook friends': surrogates and gay fathers in the US negotiating tensions between gift and market exchange (Accepted version, English)

by Marcin Smietana

2018, Perspectives internationales sur la gestation pour autrui: expériences des personnes concernées et contextes d’action, pp. 225-247. Edited by Isabel Côté, Kévin Lavoie and Jérôme Courduriès. Ste-Foy, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

In this chapter I discuss the narratives about surrogacy I gathered from surrogates, gay fathers, and fertility professionals in the United States. I draw on a year and a half of qualitative interviews and participant observation I... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Rainbow Families

Key research themes

1. How do Rainbow Families navigate sociopolitical and legal challenges across different cultural and geopolitical contexts?

2. What are the family formation pathways, parenting practices, and internal family dynamics of Rainbow Families across diverse social and cultural settings?

3. How do conceptualizations of racial and ethnic identity intersect with rainbow family experiences and social perceptions?

Related Topics

All papers in Rainbow Families