Relationships are an essential part of human life, but they can be challenging to maintain due to various factors such as personality differences, communication issues, external pressures, and personal expectations.
The complexity of LGBT military couples' relationships is unique because it involves multiple layers of identity, including race, gender, class, religion, ethnicity, culture, geography, age, physical ability, family structure, career, and more. This article explores how social, cultural, and institutional factors affect relational satisfaction in LGBT military couples.
The first factor that impacts relational satisfaction is the military environment. The US Armed Forces have historically been hostile towards gay and lesbian individuals, leading to discrimination, harassment, and even discharge. While this situation has improved recently, there are still some challenges facing LGBT service members who want to serve openly.
Some units may tolerate their presence but not accept their relationship status, while others may exclude them from activities or events.
The lack of policies protecting same-sex partnership benefits limits access to housing, healthcare, legal assistance, and other services offered by the Department of Defense (DoD). As a result, LGBT military couples often find themselves struggling with fear, isolation, and uncertainty about their future, which negatively impacts their relationship.
Another critical factor is sexual orientation. While many people understand sexual orientation as something innate and unchangeable, society tends to treat it as a choice or an individual preference. Consequently, LGBT military personnel face prejudice, bias, and rejection based on their sexual identity, making it difficult for them to build meaningful connections with peers or superiors.
Coming out can be traumatic, particularly if they do so during deployment or when their partner is away, forcing them into solitary confinement without support networks. These experiences create emotional distress, low self-esteem, and feelings of being "less than," ultimately affecting relational satisfaction.
Culture also plays a role in relational satisfaction because it shapes how people view relationships and express affection.
Some cultures value monogamy, while others permit polygamous marriages. In addition, some religious communities reject homosexuality entirely, creating tension between belief systems and personal values. As such, LGBT military couples must navigate these differences carefully to maintain harmony within their families of origin and their intimate relationships. Moreover, cultural norms around gender roles can complicate communication, intimacy, and power dynamics, especially when one partner identifies differently from the other.
Institutional factors influence relational satisfaction by limiting access to resources and opportunities that promote relationship stability.
Same-sex couples may not have access to adoption services, healthcare benefits, child care, housing allowances, family leave, or retirement options offered to heterosexual counterparts. This inequality leads to financial instability, which strains partnerships over time. It also creates a culture where LGBT individuals are expected to hide their relationships for fear of losing benefits or getting fired, undermining trust and honesty.
Social, cultural, and institutional factors all significantly impact relational satisfaction in LGBT military couples. The military environment can be hostile, sexual orientation is stigmatized, and culture can conflict with identity. Institutional policies that discriminate against LGBT service members further exacerbate these issues. To improve relational satisfaction, policymakers should create more inclusive environments where everyone feels safe and supported, regardless of sexual orientation.
Which social, cultural, and institutional factors most significantly affect relational satisfaction in LGBT military couples?
Many researchers have found that the relational satisfaction of LGBT military couples is significantly influenced by their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender identity, age, geographical location, political views, religious beliefs, family structure, and occupations (Baams & Sell, 2015; Gould et al. , 2018).