After reading this chapter, the reader should be able to:

Most of the research on older LGBT families was spurred by the articulation of the life course perspective, which provides a model for understanding individual, family, and social historical processes and change over time (Allen et al. 2000; Bengtson and Allen 1993; Bengtson et al. 2005). There are several key concepts from the life course perspective that are particularly relevant to the study of LGBT aging individuals and their families. The concept of linked lives refers to the ways that individual lives are connected “across the generations by bonds of kinship” (Bengtson et al. 2005, p. 494). A second key concept refers to the major life transitions that individuals and families experience, as well as their timing in each person’s life (Bengtson and Allen 1993). For example, the first time one comes out to family members is an event that signals a major life transition. From that point forward, an individual is no longer seen as heterosexual, or as fitting into a normative model of development. A third key concept refers to the historical time, place, and context in which individuals experience major social changes. For example, as we describe later in this chapter, the issue of “same-sex marriage” is likely experienced very differently for persons who are currently age 65, compared to adults who are currently age 25. Older LGBT individuals partnered and established their families at a time when same-sex marriage was legally and socially prohibited. This social historical reality is a likely contribution to so many older LGBT individuals first marrying heterosexually, particularly in order to become a parent. In contrast, young LGBT adults are much more free to come out as a sexual minority and to have the opportunity to legally marry their same-sex partner, as well as to establish their own LGBT-parent family (Tasker 2013).

In an application of the life course perspective, Fredriksen-Goldsen and Muraco (2010) reviewed 58 empirical articles published between 1984 and 2008 that focused on the lives of LGB adults aged 50 and older. They found that much of the research addressed two themes central to the life course perspective: (a) the interplay of lives and historical times and (b) linked and interdependent lives. Early studies on LGB aging focused on stereotypes about the mental health status of these populations. Contrary to popular belief that older gay men and lesbians were depressed, felt sexually undesirable, and struggled with the normative aging process, the majority of the early articles describe positive psychosocial functioning among older gay men and lesbians (Berger 1984; Berger and Kelly 1986; Gray and Dressel 1985), with favorable feelings about aging (Whitford 1997), appearance (Gray and Dressel 1985), and sexuality (Pope and Schulz 1990). In fact, studies showed that older gay and lesbian adults typically rated their mental health as good or excellent (D’Augelli et al. 2001) and reported no more depressive symptoms than their heterosexual counterparts (Dorfman et al. 1995). With respect to social relationships, the research suggested that older gay male and lesbian women were not isolated but were actively engaged in supportive relationships with partners, friends, members of their families of origin, and the larger LGB communities (Brown et al. 2001; Grossman et al. 2000; Nystrom and Jones 2003; Whitford 1997).

Another major theoretical framework relevant to the study of LGBT aging and families is Minority Stress Theory. Developed by Meyer (2003), minority stress theory is a conceptual framework that explains how “stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create a hostile and stressful social environment that causes mental health problems” (p. 674). Minority stress for LGBT individuals is linked to alienation and problems with self-acceptance (that is, internalized homophobia). Aging-related stress is linked to concerns about the ability to maintain health and independence into old age, as well as fiscal concerns, such as outliving their income and having a place to live (MetLife Mature Market Institute 2010). Minority stress theory has been used to examine whether same-sex marriage is a protective factor against the combined effects of sexual minority stress and aging-related stress. For example, an analysis by Wight et al. (2012) of a subsample of gay men (age range of 44–75 years, with a mean age of 57 years) from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, examined the impact of minority stress and aging-related stress on their lives. They found that legal marriage among HIV-negative and HIV-positive older gay men is indeed a protective factor that may offset the mental health issues associated with being gay and growing old.

LGBT families are varied. There is no “typical” LGBT family form any more than there is a typical heterosexual family form. In addition, cultural norms dictate additional family interactions for racial and ethnic minority LGBT persons (see Chaps. 6, 7, 8, and 10).

Families of origin. Family of origin relationships refers to biological or genetic ties within the context of marriage and parenthood. Family of origin relationships include, then, the relationships that LGBT adults have with their aging parents and adult siblings, as well as the relationships they have with their same-sex partners, same- or different-sex partners, children, and grandchildren. As we note throughout this chapter, it is very common for LGBT individuals to substitute chosen family relationships for biological ones, given the lack of acceptance and legal protection that has been the legacy of being gay, at least until very recently (Cohen and Murray 2006). We discuss chosen family relationships in a subsequent section below and focus on the traditional understanding of “family of origin” in this section.

Considering a wide age span (65+) for older adulthood, elders who are 65 years old in 2015 were born in 1950; elders who are 85 years old in 2015 were born in 1930. Representatives of these two eras were thus born into the baby boom generation (1950s) and the children of the Great Depression generation (1930s). All of these individuals came of age when sexual minority status was illegal, prosecuted, and considered morally and mentally depraved. Being a sexual minority was a truly isolating and underground experience. Individuals hid their sexual orientation from their family members and employers in order to survive persecution and rejection. Thus, coming of age as an LGBT individual before the end of the twentieth century was a time when openness was dangerous to one’s social standing and familial relationships.

As a result of the severely restricted social climate for LGBT individuals until the very late twentieth century, one of the most significant family of origin issues was “coming out” as lesbian or gay to parents and siblings (Cohen and Murray 2006; Jacobson and Grossman 1996; Orel 2014).

Until recently, LGBT individuals did not tend to come out until well into adulthood, after they had already experienced heterosexual marriage, and possibly parenthood. Although mothers and siblings were reported to be more accepting than fathers (a trend that continues to this day), many LGBT individuals lost their family of origin ties (Friend 1990). As they grew older, this lack of sustained biological family ties contributed to a need for chosen kin relationships, particularly the development of friendship ties as a substitute for family ties (Muraco and Fredriksen-Goldsen 2011). However, Connidis (2010) explains that coming out and experiencing rejection is not a lifelong legacy for LGBT adults; as time passes, “many gay and lesbian persons with families work out good relations with both their parents and siblings” (p. 239).

Although aging baby boomers are among the first to experience a more positive social and legal climate in which to grow old, the literature on LGBT elders has documented more challenges to their well being, compared to heterosexually identified elders (e.g., Fredriksen-Goldsen et al. 2013; Gabrielson and Holston 2014; Quam and Whitford 1992; Shenk and Fullmer 1996). A history of strained relationships with family of origin members can add additional stresses to aging-related concerns. Naples’ (2001) autoethnography of coping with her father’s funeral in the face of disapproving adult siblings is a powerful illustration of strained family ties. The good news is that because private life is inextricably linked to broader social and political trends, LGBT aging family relationships are likely to be less stressful as public acceptance increases.

Reczek (2014) examined the intergenerational relationships of 22 lesbian women and 28 gay men aged 40 and older who were in an intimate relationship for at least seven years. The participants’ relationships with both their parents and parents-in-law included dimensions of support, conflict, and ambivalence. Supportive parents integrated the couple into their everyday lives and special family events (i.e., holidays, funerals), used inclusive language seen as evidence of acceptance of the relationships regardless of legal status, relied on the couple for instrumental and emotional support, and affirmed their gay or lesbian identity. Evidence of conflict in their relationship with at least one of their parents manifested as rejection in everyday life (e.g., unpleasant or absent interactions), rejection around traumatic events (e.g., changing will with the occurrence of a severe illness), and the threat of being usurped (e.g., not respecting wishes at illness or death). Some respondents acknowledged that their parents and parents-in-law experienced both support and strain simultaneously (e.g., acts of acceptance but words of disapproval). Identification of these dimensions in the families of aging LGBT individuals provides the groundwork for future research on parent–child relationships and the consequences for the well-being of aging LGBT adult children and their older adult parents.

Another life course issue that is complicated by sexual orientation diversity is the likelihood that older LGBT individuals, especially lesbians, are more likely called upon to care for aging parents. Although 43.5 million individuals in the USA provide care for a family member 50 years of age or older (Family Caregiver Alliance 2012), to date, there has been little empirical research on family of origin caregiving by LGBT adults. Based on available qualitative data and anecdotal accounts, LGBT caregivers’ reasons for providing care (e.g., need; filial responsibility), types of caregiving tasks in which they engage (e.g., emotional and instrumental support), and concerns they have about caregiving (e.g., where to turn for help, how to access services, and what services are available) are very similar to heterosexual family caregivers. For example, Cantor et al. (2004) study of gay and lesbian adults caring for a relative from their family of origin identified three primary reasons their family member needed care: physical illness, frailty, and Alzheimer’s disease. The types of care included providing emotional support and hands-on care, helping with decision making and financial management, serving as liaison with other family members, and arranging for medical care and support services. About half of the caregivers were women and about two-thirds of lesbian caregivers said that they were either the sole provider or provided most of the care. As with the general population of family caregivers, gay and lesbian caregivers reported significant burden and stress as a result of their caregiver role (e.g., juggling the demand of being employed and caregiving, limited time for self and other relationships, and conflicts or disagreements with other family members about the care of the older person).

While family caregivers often experience both positive and negative aspects of caregiving, LGBT caregivers may face additional challenges when their family has a negative view of their sexual orientation. Cohen and Murray (2006) cited findings from an unpublished study by Murray in which lesbian caregivers described strained interpersonal family relationships because of a lack of acceptance of their sexual orientation or choice of partner. The following quote by two study participants illustrates the tension LGBT caregivers may face.

Robin, single, age 46: As long as my Dad is alive, I cannot openly live as a lesbian. He has threatened to leave his estate to one of my male cousins if I act ‘queer.’ I thought that getting married would get him off my case about women, but it didn’t. At this point in my life, it’s just easier to have female friends rather than lovers (p. 293)

Anne, partnered for 16 years, age 42: Although I’m the only one who has taken responsibility for Mom and Dad, they have cut me out of their will. Dad said that he wouldn’t leave any money to his queer daughter. (Cohen and Murray, p. 293)

From a life course perspective, with its emphasis on linked lives, transitions, and trajectories over time, when a person comes out, there is also an impact on their siblings’ lives. Thus, one person’s coming out is likely to be a family event for heterosexual and LGBT individuals alike (Connidis 2010). One of the most exciting areas of new research is how sibling relationships are impacted by LGBT identity among family members throughout the life course. For example, Rothblum et al. (2004), in a study of 1254 LGB adults and their siblings, found that, in general, LGB adults were more highly educated, geographically mobile, less religious, and less likely to have or live with children than heterosexual siblings. Thus, understanding the nature of sibling ties among older adults, particularly in terms of companionship and caregiving, is an important issue for future study (Goldberg 2007; Gottlieb 2004; Grossman et al. 2000).

Intergenerational relationships with children and grandchildren. Although about one-half of lesbian and gay older adults have biological or adoptive children from previous heterosexual relationships (Heaphy 2009), little is known about older LGBT persons’ relationships with their adult children. Coming out to children after years of hiding their sexual identity often happens indirectly and can be emotionally challenging for older adults (Hunter 2007). Yet, Goldberg (2007) found that most of the 42 adult children with LGB parents in her study reported positive relationships with their parents.

The small, but growing literature on the experiences of gay and lesbian grandparents suggests that adult children are the key in determining the nature of the relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren (Orel 2014). Because adult children typically act as family gatekeepers, their acceptance and attitudes toward non-heterosexual identities and relationships often determine the amount of access grandparents have to their grandchildren (Orel and Fruhauf 2013). When adult children hold negative beliefs about homosexuality, many grandparents are reluctant to disclose their sexual identity to their children because they fear they may lose contact with their grandchildren. Conversely, supportive adult children often facilitate the process of coming out to grandchildren, which many gay and lesbian grandparents believe is important because it promotes tolerance and honesty.

In a qualitative study of 11 gay grandfathers, aged 40–79, Fruhauf et al. (2009) found that adult children played an active role in the men’s coming-out process to grandchildren, with most adult children involved in explaining their fathers’ relationship to their children. For example, Bruce relayed the following story.

The family was over for dinner and my granddaughter turned to Eric, my life partner, who is Japanese-American. (So, hardly, you know, a match in terms of an obvious brother or something.) She said, “Why do you live here?” and I went like that, and my daughter said, “No, no, no, no, I’ll deal with this.” So, they left the table, came back about 15 min later, and everybody, you know, is terribly silent waiting to see what will happen. My granddaughter sits there, and she said after a few minutes, “Mommy says that Eric is daddy’s special friend. When I’m older, Jessica will be my special friend.” (p. 111)

The roles grandfathers played in the lives of their grandchildren also depended on their relationship with the grandchildren’s parents (Fruhauf et al. 2009). Some grandfathers have no or limited contact with their adult children because they are unaccepting of their father’s sexuality. For example, Kerry explained that he recently reunited with his estranged son and had since become “more of a grandfather” to his five-year-old grandson. Conversely, Kerry’s son-in-law does not accept Kerry’s sexuality, which has influenced his relationship with his older grandsons with whom he does not have a close relationship.

With the increase in the number of LGBT adults who are parents and the aging of the population, “doing family” will require an openness to complex family structures and relationships (Perlesz et al. 2006). In their study of multi-generational family interviews with 20 lesbian-parented families living in Victoria, Australia, Perlesz et al. (2006) revealed that being a grandparent in a lesbian-parented family was not always comfortable and challenged the dominant discourse around the definition family. In one family, the non-biological grandfather initially made heterosexist jokes about his daughter “playing daddy” in her prospective lesbian co-parenting role. Yet, upon the birth of his grandchild, he adopted the title of “Pop” and embraced a grandparent role in relation to his non-biological granddaughter. The biological grandmother in this family initially also was negative about her daughter’s decision to parent in a lesbian relationship, but after the child was born she embraced her role as a grandmother. The lesbian couple, while recognizing the existence of their parents’ homophobia, was pleased that their parents engaged in positive relationships with their child (Perlesz et al. 2006, p. 193):

Fiona: … you do think about your own parents, how you were parented when you have a child and like Jacqui’s family, as much as they are a pain in the butt sometimes, they’re actually, it’s nice having them around you know. Like your mum, Imogen has a great time with your mum. Your mum is bloody atrocious sometimes with some of the stuff that she says but her relationship with Imogen is really good.

Jacqui: Yeah it is good.

Fiona: And it is great, it’s fabulous seeing that….

LGBT intimate relationships in later life. About 60 % of older lesbian and bisexual women and about 40 % of older gay and bisexual men are in a coupled relationship (Heaphy et al. 2004). Historically, these couples were more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to maintain separate households (Barker et al. 2006), which allowed them to remain closeted to family and others. Issues of concern for LGBT couples include ageist attitudes, financial stability, long-term care, lack of access to legal marriage, and sexuality (Baumle 2014). The study highlighted in the research box provides an illustration of the fluidity of sexuality for older lesbians, particularly in terms of their perceptions of their romantic and sexual relationships over time (Averett et al. 2012).

de Vries (2007) addressed the diversity of coupled relationships for LGBT elders, including cohabiting and legal unions, as well as partnerships formed post-heterosexual divorce or post coming out as gay or lesbian. Herdt et al. (1997) estimated that for older adults age 55 and over, approximately one-third of gay men and one-half of lesbians had been married at one time to a different-sex spouse. Among the current cohort of older LGBT individuals, it was likely that at least one of the partners was previously married to a cross-sex spouse, because marriage was typically the only way to have children (Connidis 2010). While the growing recognition of same-sex marriages provides LGBT elders access to the personal benefits and social recognition of a formal marriage, some gay and lesbian adults view legalized marriage as a “sell out” to a heterosexist society, often fearing the loss of connection to their LGBT roots and social networks (Lannutti 2005). Bisexual individuals, of whom very little is known (Biblarz and Savci 2010; Rodriguez Rust 2012), particularly those in long-term committed heterosexual marriages, often experience stigma in both the heterosexual and the LGBT communities (de Vries 2007). Relationships in which an older adult is transitioning from male-to-female or female-to-male have added complexity as the gender-based socialization of the individuals and the couple is changed (Cook-Daniels 2006; Persson 2009).