critical analysis

Sociology Compass10/5 (2016), 391–403, 10.1111/soc4.12370

Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States

Samuel L. Perry 1*

and Andrew L. Whitehead 2

1Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Clemson University

Abstract

Family forms that have historically been considered“nontraditional”and even“transgressive”are becom-

ing increasingly accepted in the United States, bringing the United States into greater conformity with

other western nations. The United States is still unique, however, in that religion continues to play an

exceptionally powerful role in shaping Americans’perceptions of and engagement in non-traditional

families. Focusing our attention on same-sex and interracial families specif ically, we consider the recent

work on how religion serves to stimulate and justify opposition or (in a minority of instances) support

for such families. We contend that studies typically limit their focus to the cognitive aspects (beliefs,

ideologies, identities, schemas, salience, etc.) of religion, while often ignoring the inf luence of religion’s

more structural aspects in shaping Americans’relationship to non-traditional families. Given that religion

impacts Americans’approaches to family formation at the micro, meso, and macro levels, we propose a

more Durkheimian perspective on the topic, one that synthesizes social psychological and structural

frameworks in future studies, thus allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of religion’s

evolving role in American family formation. We also call for more attention to how religion shapes

thefunctioningof non-traditional families.

Introduction

The United States is currently undergoing dramatic cultural and demographic change, and

Americans’evolving conceptions of family life are one arena within which these shifts are most

clearly visible. Family forms that were historically thought of as“nontraditional”,oreven

“transgressive,”are increasingly common. The percentage of marriages that are interracial, for

example, is growing every year (Qian and Lichter 2011). And with theObergefell v. Hodges

decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 2015, same-sex couples can now legally marry

in every state. Even before the decision, numerous polls showed that a slight majority of

Americans already supported the right of gays and lesbians to marry (Brewer 2014).

Despite the gradually growing acceptance of culturally non-traditional romantic and family

forms like interracial or same-sex families, these families have never been the norm and still face

considerable barriers to their formation as well as persistent scrutiny and opposition. Interracial

couples, for example, still report facing opposition from family as well as stigma in public places

(Lehmiller 2012; Steinbugler 2012), and (White) Americans are still quite reluctant to cross

racial/ethnic boundaries in dating and marriage (Herman and Campbell 2012; Lin and

Lundquist 2013; Lundquist and Lin 2015; Robnett and Feliciano 2011; Qian and Lichter 2011).

And of course, about half of Americans still view same-sex relationships of any kind (sexual

relations, marriage, civil unions, adoption/parenting) as morally wrong (Brewer 2014; Doan,

Loehr, and Miller 2014; Perry and Whitehead 2015a; Whitehead and Perry 2014a, 2015),

and a number of conservative politicians, following theObergefell v. Hodgesdecision, have

expressed that the legal debate on same-sex families is far from over (Larimore 2015). It is

ing non-traditional romantic and family relationships in the United States.

In considering the social correlates of whether Americans support, or even engage in, non-

traditional romantic and family relationships, religious factors are consistently among the stron-

gest predictors. On the whole, Americans who are more“religious”(usually measured by

worship attendance, but occasionally other measures), espouse more theologically fundamentalist

or conservative beliefs, and/or identify with conservative or sectarian religious groups or denom-

inations, tend to be less favorable toward interracial families and same-sex families. Comprehen-

sive sociological explanations for these trends, however, are lacking. Rather, the majority of

research on this issue draws its theoretical and conceptual framework either from social psychol-

ogy primarily (e.g. contact theory, attribution theory, social identity theory, various theories

of prejudice) or to a far lesser extent theories of social structure (e.g. social segregation, status,

and group threat). In this review, we seek to advance sociological research on non-traditional

family forms by arguing for a more robust, Durkheimian understanding of religion’svitalrela-

tionship to shifting def initions of family in the United States. We review and then re-articulate

current research with an eye toward bridging micro, meso, and macro-level mechanisms

connecting the broader social context and organization of American religion with the ways

Americans think about and engage in culturally non-traditional family forms. In order to focus

our attention on the most relevant research, we include only studies published since 2000.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. We f irst discuss research on religion’s

relationship to same-sex families in the United States, followed by a survey of research on

religion’s relationship to interracial families. Taking into consideration the conceptual

frameworks and central f indings of these studies, we then propose that a more Durkheimian

understanding of religion can better advance a synthetic theoretical and empirical agenda for

research on religion’s relationship to non-traditional families. We conclude by calling for

research to f ill several notable gaps in the literature on religion and non-traditional families, most

prominently, the functioning of such families.

Religion and same-sex families

A substantial amount of research since 2000 analyzes religion and public opinion toward same-

sex sexuality, legal unions, and parenting, and the inf luence of religion is partially determined

by the type of same-sex practice being considered (Perry and Whiteheadforthcoming). However,

the dominant approach within much of this research may be understood as Weberian (Hitlin

and Vaisey 2013), in that most studies emphasize the importance of religiousideas(e.g. theological

or cultural beliefs, ideologies, identities, schemas) or other cognitive aspects of religion (e.g.

religious salience) as the central mechanisms linking religious life with Americans’views toward

same-sex romantic and family relations. Negative affect, attitudes, or outright political opposition

toward homosexuality, for example, are predicted by religious importance (Adamczyk and Pitt

2009), literal interpretations of scripture (Burdette, Ellison, and Hill 2005; Froese et al. 2008;

Kenneavy 2012; Loftus 2001; Moon 2004; Rowatt et al. 2009), various images of God (Froese

and Bader 2007, 2010), identifying as“born again”(Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008), and identi-

f ication with particular religious groups like Evangelical or Black Protestants (Finlay and Walther

2003; Greeley and Hout 2006; Koch and Curry 2000; Loftus 2001; Thomas and Whitehead

2015). These cognitive aspects of religion provide schemas through which moral authority is un-

derstood and employed, which in turn shapes Americans’views toward relationships that defy such

authority, like homosexual relations. Religious service attendance is also a consistent predictor of

opposition to homosexuality (Finlay and Walther 2003; Froese, Bader, and Smith 2008; Kenneavy

2012), but studies frequently interpret religiousattendance as measuring something more global

392 Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States

(Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008).

Alternatively, however, some research conceives of religious attendance more structurally, as

an indicator of embeddedness within a moral community with particular views toward

homosexuality that either reinforce individuals’previously held beliefs or offer alternative

interpretations of the morality of homosexuality that they come to adopt as their own (Perry

2013a; Scheitle and Cornell 2015). Considering the importance of religious community outside

of the congregational context, Merino (2013) found that while conversations with gays and

lesbians generally promoted support for legalizing same-sex unions, having a greater number

of close relationships with religious conservatives actually negated the inf luence of these

conversations. Other studies also highlight the importance of national (Adamczyk and Pitt

2009; Jäckle and Wenzelburger 2015) and state-level cultural context (Brumbaugh et al.,

2008; Scheitle and Hahn 2011) when examining the inf luence of religion on attitudes toward

homosexual relationships. Adamczyk and Pitt (2009), for example, f ind that the role religion

plays in people’s views toward homosexuality depends in some part on the cultural context

of the nation in question. Countries with strong self-expressive orientations create a context

within which religion has a stronger effect on individual attitudes.

Regarding same-sex marriage specif ically, it is diff icult to f ind another topic on which

Americans’attitudes shifted so dramatically from 2000 to the present.

2The wholesale changes

in attitudes correspond to historic revisions of the legal standing of gay and lesbian couples in

American society. In 2000, same-sex marriage was legal in zero states.

3With the Supreme

Court’s decision in 2015 withObergefell v. Hodges,same-sex marriage was legalized across the

entire United States. Despite these changes in both public perception and legal recognition, a

signif icant and vocal minority still oppose same-sex marriage. Those opposing same-sex

marriage often frame their disapproval on religious grounds. The most visible example shortly

afterObergefell v. Hodgeswas a situation in which a county clerk from Kentucky refused to issue

any marriage licenses citing religious objections. When asked under whose authority she refused

to issue licenses, she replied,“Under God’s authority”(Blinder and Pérez-Peña 2015).

Recent research on the topic of same-sex marriage

4consistently highlights the central role that

religion plays in understanding Americans’views. In fact, religion is more important than socio-

demographic variables (Olson, Cadge, and Harrison 2006). As with homosexuality, the idea-

tional, cognitive, micro-level aspects of religion typically receive the most emphasis in studies

of religion and same-sex unions. How Americansview God, for example, inf luences their stance

on same-sex marriage. Masculine, angry, or active images of God correspond to opposition to

same-sex marriage as does believing God has a special plan for the United States (Froese and Bader

2010; Whitehead 2010, 2014a; Whitehead and Perry2015). Other traditional religious beliefs,

such as believing the Bible should be read literally, are also signif icantly associated with opposition

to same-sex marriage (Burdette, Ellison, and Hill 2005; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos-Wada

2011; Hill, Moulton, and Burdette 2004; Perry2013a, 2015; Sherkat, de Vries, and Creek

2010; Sherkat et al. 2011; Whitehead 2010). Many researchers view religious beliefs as schemas

that people use in order to make sense of and structure their interpretation of their social world.

Some research also considers the role of religious behavior. Americans who pray more, read

sacred scriptures more, or who attend religious services more frequently are all more likely to

oppose same-sex marriage (Burdette et al. 2005; Ellison et al. 2011; Olson et al. 2006; Perry

2013a, 2015; Whitehead 2010). Frequent religious activity may be understood from a

Weberian perspective, asresulting fromreligious commitment, values, and ideas, or from a more

Durkheimian perspective, as rites and rituals that reinforce membership within a particular

moral community (Durkheim 1995 [1912]). Those who more frequently engage in these rituals

are naturally more likely to maintain support for particular worldviews specif ic to their

Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States 393

they identify and participate. Evangelical and Black Protestants tend to oppose same-sex mar-

riage more so than Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Jews, or the religiously unaff iliated

(Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Olson et al. 2006; Sherkat et al. 2011; Whitehead 2014b).

Among Latinos, the difference between various aff iliations is even stronger (Ellison et al. 2011).

However, even in groups traditionally opposed to non-heterosexual relationships, there is

growing ambivalence about opposing equal rights for these groups, suggesting that changes in

the broader culture as well as cross-cutting group memberships among younger cohorts are

causing moral boundaries to shift (Bean and Martinez 2014a; Farrell 2011). Bean and Martinez

(2014b), for example, draw on the concept of“structured ambivalence”to describe the growing

situation where committed evangelicals experience inconsistent normative expectations: on the

one hand, holding a moral worldview opposed to homosexuality, but on the other hand,

hearing cultural and religious messages to embrace gay men and women as individuals. While

the authors do not address this specif ically, it is likely that similar“structured ambivalence”exists

with regard to committed Catholics in the United States, the majority of whom do not oppose

homosexuality as individuals, but whose religious leaders have been strongly opposed to it.

Compared to attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage, much less work

focuses on the inf luence of religion on attitudes toward same-sex adoption. Whitehead and

Perry (2014) point out that this is likely due to the majority of legal controversies surrounding

same-sex relationships was about romantic unions of gay and lesbian couples as well as

researchers neglecting to distinguish how same-sex adoption is a different type of relationship

compared to same-sex marriage. Some studies f ind that particular religious identities encourage

opposition to same-sex adoption (Averett et al. 2011; Besen and Zicklin 2007; Perry 2013a,

2014a; Ryan, Bedard, and Gertz 2004), but more recently, when controlling for various other

dimensions of religiosity, identity appears to be much less important (Whitehead and Perry

2014). Various studies f ind that increasing levels of worship attendance, as an indicator of

religious commitment, is signif icantly associated with more negative views toward same-sex

adoption (Lambert et al. 2006; Perry 2013a, 2014a; Whitehead and Perry 2014). And those

who believe the Bible should be read literally are more likely to oppose same-sex adoption

compared to people who believe the Bible requires interpretation, contains some human error,

or is a historical book of legends (Perry and Whitehead 2015a; Whitehead and Perry 2014).

Within the literature described above, the emphasis is typically on the cognitive or social

psychological aspects of religious life: beliefs, identities, ideologies, etc. Consequently, various

social psychological theories have been employed to connect these religious factors with

negative affect toward same-sex relationships, including contact theory (Merino 2013), social

identity complexity theory (Whitehead and Perry 2015), attribution theory (Haider-Markel

and Joslyn 2005, 2008; Thomas and Whitehead 2015; Whitehead 2010; Whitehead and Baker

2012), and others. Far fewer are the studies that acknowledge how structural aspects of religion

( for example, a person’s degree of embeddedness within a religio-cultural community) shape

Americans’conceptions of same-sex relationships. Yet, the f indings from this research are also

clear that religion is multifaceted and must be modeled as such. The effects of religious beliefs

are commonly moderated by behavior and belonging. As researchers analyze religion and

Americans’views toward non-traditional families, it is important to attend to the

multidimensional nature of religion and its varied inf luence.

Religion and interracial families

Compared to research on religion and same-sex romantic and family relationships, far less

explicit attention is given to the ways religion shapes Americans’conceptions of and

394 Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States

interracial relationships include religion only as a control variable, often spending little effort

to interpret its effects. Indeed some don’t even specify how religion or religiosity was operation-

alized (e.g. Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2005). In the case of homosexuality and same-sex families,

the relevance of religion is more obvious since conservative religious groups have been so vocal

in their opposition. The connection between religion and interracial families, however, while

less obvious than the connection with same-sex families, is consistent and strong. Recent

scholarship has also recognized the important parallels between same-sex and interracial families,

arguing that Americans’views toward such relationships are appropriately studied together

(Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2005; Perry 2013b, 2014a; Rosenfeld 2007; Rosenfeld and Kim

2005; Steinbugler 2012). Building on this notion, we propose that religion relates to both

same-sex and interracial families similarly for several reasons. Historically, anti-miscegenation

laws were justif ied with religious rhetoric leading up toLoving v. Virginiain 1967 just as such

rhetoric and reasoning was used to oppose same-sex unions until theObergefell v. Hodges

decision in 2015. And political opposition to both interracial and same-sex families has always

been most concentrated in the southern states, where religiosity and religious conservatism

are most prominent. More fundamentally, however, both interracial and same-sex families

represent violations of tacitly (or explicitly) held moral boundaries and cultural standards of

family formation which religious values, rituals, and communities work to defend (Durkheim

1995 [1912]). That is to say, both interracial and same-sex families violate often sacralized values

surrounding moral authority, tradition, and group solidarity.

5To the degree that religion

embeds actors within moral communities and solidif ies the boundaries of“us”as opposed to

“them,”any violations of the sacralized cultural standards of family formation, including norms

of proper boundaries (same-race, heteronormative) and hierarchies (middleclass, patriarchal)

will be particularly salient. Thus, the relationship of religion to the growing number of

interracial families in the United States is a natural parallel to the consideration of religion and

same-sex families (Rosenfeld 2007; Steinbugler 2012).

The majority of research on interracial families in the United States since 2000 focuses on

Americans’evolving views toward and engagement in dating, marriage, and adoption across

racial lines, with religion mostly being considered in relation to racial exogamy, and far less so

in relationship to transracial adoption. As with the research on religion and same-sex families,

understandings of religion’s relationship to interracial families have been tacitly Weberian in that

ideas, beliefs, identities, commitment, and other cognitive aspects of religion are given primary

importance. Because research on public opinion toward interracial families is most often using

religion as a control, religious service attendance has been the standard“rough and ready”

measure of Americans’“religiosity”or commitment. In general, studies f ind that more frequent

attendees are relatively less likely to support or engage in interracial dating or marriage compared

to persons who attend religious services less frequently or not at all (Phua and Kaufman, 2003;

Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2005; Herman and Campbell 2012; Johnson and Jacobson 2005;

Lichterman et al. 2009; Perry 2013c, 2014b; Putnam and Campbell 2010; Wang and Kao

2007; Yancey 2001, 2007a, 2009a, 2009b). While this f inding is persistent, little theorizing

has been done to explain the link between religious service attendance and Americans’support

for interracial dating and marriage relationships. As scholars often use worship attendance as a

proxy for“religiosity,”the tacit assumption is that religious commitment is itself associated with

group boundary maintenance generally, and prejudicial attitudes toward racial exogamy

specif ically (Golebiowska 2007; Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2005; Herman and Campbell

2012; Wang and Kao 2007; Yancey 2007a). Perry (2014b), however, proposes that religious

service attendanceper se(and just as important, religious commitment) does not necessarily pro-

mote anti-miscegenation sentiment among attendees, but rather religious service attendance

Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States 395

shapes attendees’visions of the ideal romantic match. Because American congregations are so

highly segregated along racial lines (Emerson 2006; Yancey 2007b), greater embeddedness

withinanycommunity where all romantic couples are same-race will naturally inf luence

attendees’perceptions of racial exogamy. The fact that racially homogenous religious commu-

nities are alsomoralcommunities can make the tacit messages promoting ethno-racial endogamy

particularly inf luential.

Perry’s theory that religious service attendance or religiosity more generally is not in itself

associated with opposition to interracial romantic and family relationships is supported by two

consistent f indings in the literature. First, those who attend racially diverse congregations tend

to exhibit more positive attitudes toward interracial marriage in general ( Johnson and Jacobson

2005) or for their family members (Emerson 2006; Perry 2013d, 2013e, 2014c; Yancey 2001,

2007b) compared to Whites who attend more homogenous congregations. Persons in racially

diverse congregations are also more likely to support transracial adoption (Perry 2011). Indeed,

ethnographic studies of racially diverse congregations frequently mention the prevalence of

interracial couples and families among attendees (Christerson, Edwards, and Emerson 2005;

Edwards 2008; Emerson 2006; Garces-Foley 2007; Marti 2005). The dominant interpretation

of these trends has drawn on contact theory: faithful participation within a diverse congregation

provides opportunities for positive interracial contact, and thus promotes more aff irmative

attitudes toward interracial romantic and family relationships among Whites (Emerson 2006;

Johnson and Jacobson 2005; Perry 2013d, 2013e; Yancey 2007b). Viewed from a more

Durkheimian perspective, however, it is possible that as persons become more deeply

embedded within racially diverse congregations, they are both inf luenced by greater commu-

nity acceptance of interracial relationships, and this acceptance is often given divine authority

(Marti 2005), while also experiencing greater opportunity to interact romantically with racial

others. Secondly, research also shows that persons who more frequently engage in private,

devotional practices such as prayer and sacred text reading are more likely to have interracially

dated (Perry 2013c), more supportive of interracial marriage for their children (Perry 2013e,

2014c), and more supportive of transracial adoption (Perry and Whitehead 2015b). These

f indings would suggest that religious commitmentper sedoes not necessarily reinforce racial

boundaries in terms of family formation. But rather, devotional religious practice may be more

ref lective of persons who have internalized central teachings of their faith community about

love and tolerance and now see themselves as part of a more expansive community,

transcending ethno-racial boundaries (Emerson 2006; Marti 2005).

Other research, however, suggests that certain cognitive dimensions of religious faith may

buttress in-group boundaries. For example, fundamentalist theological beliefs predict antipathy

toward certain interracial relationships. White Americans who are biblical literalists are less com-

fortable with their daughters marrying Latinos and Asians, though not African-Americans (Perry

2013e, 2014c), and biblical literalists of any race are also less likely to have interracially dated

than those who hold more liberal views of the Bible (Perry 2013c). Religious identities are also

consistent predictors of white antipathy toward interracial relationships. In general, scholars have

reported that Protestants are more likely to express disapproval of (often Black-White) interra-

cial marriage or transracial adoption relative to religious or non-religious groups (Djamba and

Kimuna 2014; King and Bratter 2007; Perry 2010; Rosenfeld 2007). When religious identities

are broken down further, White conservative Protestants or evangelicals are less supportive of

interracial marriage (Lichterman et al. 2009; Putnam and Campbell 2010) or transracial

adoption (Perry 2014a) relative to mainline Protestants, Catholics, or the religiously unaff iliated.

Perry’s (2013c, 2013e, 2014c) research on religion and interracial dating and marriage, by

contrast, shows that mainline Protestants are less likely than evangelicals to interracially date

396 Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States

marriage than other religious groups, except for the religiously unaff iliated. This may support

Perry’s (2013a, 2013e) notion that the racial diversity of one’s religious community plays a

powerful role in shaping racial attitudes since evangelical and Catholic congregations tend to

have more racial or ethnic diversity than mainline Protestants (Emerson 2006). In another study,

however, Perry (2014c) also found that White Americans who were more interested in passing

along religious heritage to their children tended to be less supportive of interracial marriage with

African Americans, Asians, and Latinos, suggesting that for White Americans, religious identities

may be equated with whiteness to some degree. And in related studies, Perry and Whitehead

(2015a, 2015b) found that Christian nationalism–a situation in which religious and national

identities converge–is a strong predictor of White Americans’opposition to interracial marriage

and transracial adoption. These authors propose that the merging of national identity (which is

necessarily a reinforcing of social boundaries) with religious identity creates a situation in

which national identity is suffused with religious meaning and ethno-racial boundaries are

strongly reinforced.

Toward a Durkheimian perspective

The majority of research on religion and non-traditional families in the United States has

viewed religious inf luence from a perspective that we would characterize as Weberian, empha-

sizing the importance of religious ideas, beliefs, ideologies, identities, schemas, etc. in shaping

oppositional attitudes and behaviors. And yet Americans’approaches to family formation are

shaped by more than just ideas, and even ideas themselves are forged within immediate and

broader cultural contexts. Matthijs Kalmijn (1998) famously proposed that marriage relation-

ships that violate traditional social and cultural boundaries like race, ethnicity, religion (and

we might also include heterosexuality) are constrained by at least three factors that link together

micro-level processes, culture, and macro-structural realities: (i) actors’preferences for certain

characteristics in a spouse; (ii) the interference of“third parties”such as parents or close commu-

nities; and (iii) the constraints of the market which limit possibilities for interaction. Understood

from a Durkheimian perspective–in its capacity as providing a moral community that

constrains members’values, norms, and in-group boundaries–religion has a crucial role in

shaping Americans’perceptions of or engagement in non-raditional romantic and family rela-

tionships because it affects all three factors outlined by Kalmijn.

1. Religions, both in their explicit teachings as well as their local, community-level norms

and expectations, shape actors’cultural schemas of what constitutes an ideal or even

morally appropriate family relationship.

2. Religion provides a community (both kin and non-kin) that exercises moral inﬂuence and

group sanctions to steer actors toward certain relationship possibilities, and away from others.

3. Religion binds together groups who tend to be similar in terms of important social charac-

teristics and functionally segregates them from other groups, thus limiting the possibilities of

interaction with persons from outside the ethno-racial, cultural, or moral community.

Previous research on religion’s relationship to both same-sex and interracial romantic and

family relationships has tended to emphasize quality # 1 about religion, while ignoring qualities

# 2 and # 3. That is, research has emphasized the cognitive (beliefs, values, identity, salience)

aspects of religion, even interpreting corporate religious behaviors like worship attendance in

terms of what it indicates about individual Americans’intrinsic commitment to religious belief

and doctrine. Rarer are the cases in which structural aspects of religion are considered, such as its

tendency to insulate believers within a moral community of coreligionists who exercise levels of

Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States 397

along the lines of race, ethnicity, culture, and politics. We propose that this tendency ref lects

sociologists’penchant to adopt a more Weberian (or even Marxian) approach to religion,

over-emphasizing its ideological aspects, particularly within studies that examine religion’srole

in justifying some sort of exclusion and inequality.

Rather, from a Durkheimian perspective, we contend that religion is more about the binding

together of a community; it reinforces solidarity and consensus and allows cooperation and collec-

tiveeffervescencetotakeplace(Durkheim1995[1912]). Consistent support for this perspective

can be found in the literature examining religion and deviance; moral communities reliably pre-

dict a spectrum of deviant behavior (Hill 2009; Lee and Bartkowski 2004; Regnerus 2003; Stark

1984, 1996). Adopting this perspective is an important corrective in considering how religion

shapes Americans’conceptions of social institutions that are rapidly changing, like the family.

Viewed from this perspective, embeddedness withinanycommunity (not just religious ones) that

both sacralizes and attributes moral value to certain social patterns would naturally lead members

to disapprove of“deviance”and marshal all the mechanisms for collective sanction and boundary

maintenance. Religious congregations can be especially powerful in this respect (Edgell 2006).

Conversely, among members with overlapping networks who are able to interact with diverse

and deviant outsiders, we would expect less moral disapproval of boundary crossing and pattern

violation. This is exactly what we see in studies where religious adherents are able to interact with

gays and lesbians (Merino 2013) or racial others (Perry 2013e, 2014c): their approval of same-sex

and interracial romantic and family relationships increases.

Evidence for the utility of this perspective can be found in studies of another non-traditional

family form, cohabitation. While we do not focus on this particular family form in the present

manuscript, religion is consistently found to be related to the decision to cohabit. Religious

commitment (French et al. 2014; Lehrer 2000; Stanley et al. 2004), personal religiosity

(Thornton et al. 1992), and aff iliation with any religious tradition (Katz 2001; Stanley

et al. 2004) but especially fundamentalist denominations (Lehrer 2000, 2004a, 2004b) inf luence

the likelihood of cohabiting. Beyond these measures of individual religiosity, however, some

researchers found that parental religiosity also inf luenced likelihood of cohabitation (Thornton

et al. 1992). Sensing the possible inf luence of moral communities on cohabitation rates, Gault-

Sherman and Draper (2012) provide convincing evidence. They f ind that higher Evangelical

Protestant adherence rates at the county level are signif icantly associated with lower cohabita-

tion rates. This association is found to be even stronger in the South. We believe this preliminary

evidence of the power of social context on the prevalence of one non-traditional family form

should encourage future research to further examine the inf luence of moral communities.

Flowing out from this perspective, we propose the following goals in future research on

religion’s relationship to non-traditional families. First and foremost, studies should revaluate

what available religion measures are actually measuring. In particular, we advocate abandoning

religious service attendance alone as the“rough and ready”measure of the nebulous concept

“religiosity.”Rather, we propose that religious service attendance should be interpreted as an

indicator of the degree to which someone is embedded within a particular moral community.

In light of this perspective, other factors like religious identity (evangelical, Catholic, non-

Christian religion) and theological beliefs should be understood as contextual, based on the

norms of the local (and to some degree, broader) community to which one belongs. Moreover,

to some extent, all measures of religious practice like worship attendance, prayer, or sacred text

reading are rituals, and thus“ways of acting born only in the midst of assembled groups and

whose purpose is to evoke, maintain, or recreate certain mental states of those groups”

(Durkheim 1995 [1912]:9). The fact that devotional religious practices like prayer and sacred

text reading are often positively associated with Americans’support for and engagement in

398 Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States

believers with a different dimension of moral authority, one that does not necessarily reinforce

parochial boundaries but evokes more others-focused intuitions that help individuals see

themselves within a broader, global community.

Secondly, and related to the last point in the above paragraph, religion itself must be

considered within the broader social context. Moral communities adjust their boundaries in

response to broader social pressures (Chaves 1999), and within groups traditionally opposed

to non-traditional family forms like evangelical or conservative Protestants, younger cohorts

are demonstrating greater ambivalence toward both same-sex and interracial families (Bean

and Martinez 2014a; Farrell 2011; Putnam and Campbell 2010). Keeping this in mind, sociol-

ogists must avoid the tendency to view certain beliefs (e.g. biblical literalism) or identities (e.g.

born again) as timelessly linked with parochialism and disconnected from the historical context

within which such beliefs and identities became associated with“traditional”families.

Lastly, a notable oversight within studies of religion and non-traditional families is that the

vast majority, virtually all in fact, of studies focus on Americans’views toward same-sex and

interracial familyformation. Precious little work has explored the role of religion in shaping

thefunctioningof such families. As both interracial and same-sex families become increasingly

more common, the time is right for scholars to consider how religion might uniquely shape

experiences within same-sex and interracial families relative to more traditional, heterosexual,

same-race families. Beyond an exclusive focus on ideas and beliefs, such work should apply

the more comprehensive Durkheimian approach to religion and families that we advocate

above, focusing on religionquamoral community that inf luences social norms and constrains

moral values and decisions.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Jill Perry and Kelly Whitehead for their support.

Short Biographies

Samuel L. Perry is assistant professor of sociology and religious studies at the University of

Oklahoma. He received his Ph.D. in sociology at the University of Chicago. His work focuses

on the intersections of religion, family life, and diversity in the United States.

Andrew L. Whitehead is assistant professor of sociology at Clemson University. He received

his Ph.D. in sociology from Baylor University. His research interests include religion, families,

sexuality, organizations, and social psychology.

Notes

Correspondence address: Samuel L. Perry, Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, 780 Van Vleet Oval, Kaufman

Hall, Norman, OK 73019, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

1Our review is not meant to be exhaustive or systematic as in a meta-analysis, but studies are included for their theoretical

relevance to the topic at hand.

2In 2004, 30.8 percent of Americans agreed or strongly agreed that“homosexuals should have the right to marry”(2004

General Social Survey). In 2014, 56.7 percent of Americans responded in this way (2014 General Social Survey).

3In 2004, Massachusetts was theﬁrst state to begin allowing same-sex marriages.4Some of the research discussed below also investigates attitudes toward same-sex civil unions. Given the speed with which

the laws changed regarding same-sex marriage, the discussion of civil unions quickly became outdated. For this reason, we

simply focus on same-sex marriage.

Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States 399

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Sociology Compass10/5 (2016), 391–403, 10.1111/soc4.12370 5An excellent example of how interracial couples may violate sacralized notions of group identity may be found in Yancey

and Lewis (2009:42). The authors provide the full text of a letter written by a representative of Bob Jones University in 1998

about why they forbid interracial dating on campus. Citing the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11, the representative

explains that Bob Jones opposes interracial romance on the grounds that“it mixes that which God separated and intends

to keep separate”and attempts to create man-glorifying“one worldism.”

References

Adamczyk, Amy, and Cassady Pitt. 2009.‘Shaping Attitudes About Homosexuality: The Role of Religion and Cultural

Context.’Social Science Research38:338–351.

Averett, Paige, Amy Strong-Blakeney, Blace A. Nalavany, and Scott D. Ryan. 2011.‘Adoptive Parents’Attitudes towards

Gay and Lesbian Adoption.’Journal of GLBT Family Studies7:30–48.

Bean, Lydia, and Brandon C. Martinez. 2014a.‘Evangelical Ambivalence toward Gays and Lesbians.’Sociology of Religion

75(3): 395–417.

Bean, Lydia, and Brandon C. Martinez. 2014b.‘Sunday School Teacher, Culture Warrior: The Politics of Lay Leaders in

Three Religious Traditions.’Social Science Quarterly96(1): 133–147.

Besen, Yasemin, and Gilbert Zicklin. 2007.‘Young Men, Religion, and Attitudes towards Homosexuality.’Journal of Men,

Masculinities, and Spirituality1:250–266.

Blinder, Alan and Richard Pérez-Peña. 2015.‘Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Defying Court.’The

New York Times, September 1. Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-

kim-davis.html on September 21, 2015.

Brewer, Paul R. 2014.‘Public Opinion About Gay Rights and Gay Marriage.’Public Opinion Quarterly26(3): 279–282.

Brumbaugh, Stacey M., Laura A. Sanchez, Steven L. Nock, and James D. Wright. 2008.‘Attitudes Toward Gay Marriage in

States Undergoing Marriage Law Transformation.’JournalofMarriageandFamily70(2): 345–359.

Burdette, Amy M., Christopher G. Ellison, and Terrence D. Hill. 2005.‘Conservative Protestantism and Tolerance toward

Homosexuals: An Examination of Potential Mechanisms.’Sociological Inquiry75(2): 177–196.

Chaves, Mark. 1999.Ordaining Women: Culture and Conﬂict in Religious Organizations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Christerson, Brad, Korie L. Edwards, and Michael O. Emerson. 2005.Against All Odds: The Struggle for Racial Integration in

Religious Organizations. New York: New York University Press.

Djamba, Yanyi K., and Sitawa R. Kimuna. 2014.‘Are Americans Really in Favor of Interracial Marriage? A Closer Look at

When They Are Asked about Black-White Marriage for their Relatives.’

Journal of Black Studies45(6): 528–544.

Doan, Long, Annalise Loehr, and Lisa R. Miller. 2014.‘Formal Rights and Informal Privileges for Same-Sex Couples:

Evidence from a National Survey Experiment.’American Sociological Review79(6): 1172–1195.

Durkheim, Emile. 1995 [1912].The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: The Free Press.

Edgell, Penny. 2006.Religion and Family in a Changing Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Edwards, Korie L. 2008.The Elusive Dream: The Power of Race in Interracial Churches. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellison, Christopher G., Gabriel A. Acevedo, and Aida Ramos-Wada. 2011.‘Religion and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex

Marriage Among U.A. Latinos.’Social Science Quarterly92(1): 35–56.

Emerson, Michael O. 2006.People of the Dream: Multiracial Congregations in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Farrell, Justin. 2011.‘The Young and the Restless? The Liberalization of Young Evangelicals.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of

Religion50(3): 517–532.

Finlay, Barbara, and Carol S. Walther. 2003.‘The Relation of Religious Afﬁliation, Service Attendance, and Other Factors

to Homophobic Attitudes Among University Students.’Review of Religious Research44:370–393.

French, Michael T., Ioana Popovici, Philip K. Robins, and Jenny F. Homer. 2014.‘Personal Traits, Cohabitation, and

Marriage.’Social Science Research45:184–199.

Froese, Paul, and Christopher D. Bader. 2007.‘God in America: Why Theology Is Not Simply the Concern of

Philosophers.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion46:465–481.

Froese, Paul, and Christopher D. Bader. 2010.America’s Four Gods: What We Say About God–and What that Says about Us.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Froese, Paul, Christopher D. Bader, and Buster Smith. 2008.‘Political Tolerance and God’s Wrath in the United States.’

Sociology of Religion69:29

–44.

Garces-Foley, Kathleen. 2007.Crossing the Ethnic Divide: The Multiethnic Church on a Mission. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Gault-Sherman, Martha, and Scott Draper. 2012.‘What Will the Neighbors Think? The Effect of Moral Communities on

Cohabitation.’Review of Religious Research54(1): 45–67.

Golebiowska, Ewa A. 2007.‘The Contours and Etiology of Whites’Attitudes Toward Black-White Interracial Marriage.’

Journal of Black Studies38(2): 268–287.

Greeley, Andrew, and Michael Hout. 2006.The Truth about Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

400 Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Sociology Compass10/5 (2016), 391–403, 10.1111/soc4.12370 Haider-Markel, Donald, and Mark R. Josyln. 2005.‘Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels

Between Race and Homosexuality.’PS: Political Science and Politics38(2): 233–239.

Haider-Markel, Donald, and Mark R. Josyln. 2008.‘Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay

Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.’Public Opinion Quarterly72(2): 291–310.

Herman, Melissa R., and Mary E. Campbell. 2012.‘IWouldn’t, But You Can: Attitudes Toward Interracial Relationships.’

Social Science Research41(2): 343–358.

Hill, Jonathan P. 2009.‘Higher Education as Moral Community: Institutional Inﬂuences on Religious Participation During

College.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion48(3): 515–534.

Hill, Terrence D., Benjamin E. Moulton, and Amy M. Burdette. 2004.‘Conservative Protestantism and Attitudes Toward

Homosexuality: Does Political Orientation Mediate This Relationship?’Sociological Focus37:59–70.

Hitlin, Steven, and Stephen Vaisey. 2013.‘The New Sociology of Morality.’Annual Review of Sociology39:51–68.

Jäckle, Sebastian, and Georg Wenzelburger. 2015.‘Religion, Religiosity, and the Attitudes toward Homosexuality–A

Multilevel Analysis of 79 Countries.’Journal of Homosexuality62(2): 207–241.

Johnson, Bryan R., and Cardell K. Jacobson. 2005.‘Contact in Context: An Examination of Social Settings on Whites’

Attitudes toward Interracial Marriage.’Social Psychology Quarterly68(4): 387–399.

Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1998.‘Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.’Annual Review of Sociology24:395–421.

Katz, Ruth. 2001.‘Effects of Migration, Ethnicity, and Religiosity on Cohabitation.’Journal of Comparative Family Studies

32:

587–59.

Kenneavy, Kristin. 2012.‘Support for Homosexuals’Civil Liberties: The Inﬂuence of Familial Gender Role Attitudes Across

Religious Denominations.’Social Forces90(4): 1347–1375.

King, Rosalind B., and Jenifer L. Bratter. 2007.‘A Path toward Interracial Marriage: Women’s First Partners and Husbands

across Racial Lines.’The Sociological Quarterly48(2): 343–369.

Koch, Jerome R., and Evans W. Curry. 2000.‘Social Context and the Presbyterian Gay/Lesbian Ordination Debate:

Testing Open-Systems Theory.’Review of Religious Research42:206–14.

Lambert, Eric G., Lois A. Ventura, Daniel E. Hall, and Terry Cluse-Tolar. 2006.‘College Students’Views on Gay and

Lesbian Issues.’Journal of Homosexuality50:1–30.

Larimore, Rachael. 2015. Conservative Reaction to Marriage Ruling Is Mixed. Slate. http://www.slate.com/blogs/

the_slatest/2015/06/26/gay_marriage_ruling_conservative_reaction_is_mixed_and_opponents_quibble.html. Accessed

on September 1, 2015.

Lee, Matthew, and John Bartkowski. 2004.‘Love Thy Neighbor? Moral Communities, Civic Engagement, and Juvenile

Homicide in Rural Areas.’Social Forces82(3): 1001–1035.

Lehmiller, Justin J. 2012.‘Perceived Marginalization and its Association with Physical and Psychological Health.’Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships29(4): 451–469.

Lehrer, Evelyn L. 2000.‘Religion as a Determinant of Entry into Cohabitation and Marriage.’Pp. 227–252 inThe Ties That

Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, edited by Linda J. Waite. New York: Aldine de Gruyt.

Lehrer, Evelyn L. 2004a.‘The Role of Religion in Union Formation: An Economic Perspective.’Population Research and

Policy Review23:161–185.

Lehrer, Evelyn L. 2004b.‘Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic Behavior in the United States.’

Population and Development Review

30:707–72.

Lichterman, Paul, Prudence L. Carter, and Michele Lamont. 2009.‘Race-bridging for Christ? Conservative Christians and

Black-White Relations in Community Life.’Pp. 187–220 inEvangelicals and Democracy in America,editedbyStevenBrint

and Jean Reith Schroedel, vol.1. New York: Russell Sage.

Lin, Ken-Hou, and Jennifer Lundquist. 2013.‘Mate Selection in Cyberspace: The Intersection of Race, Gender, and

Education.’American Journal of Sociology119(1): 183–215.

Loftus, Jeni. 2001.‘America’s Liberalization in Attitudes toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998.’American Sociological Review

66(5): 762–782.

Lundquist, Jennifer H., and Ken-Hou Lin. 2015.‘Is Love (Color) Blind? The Economy of Race Among Gay and Straight

Daters.’Social Forces93(4): 1423–1449.

Marti, Gerardo. 2005.A Mosaic of Believers: Diversity and Innovation in a Multiethnic Church. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.

Merino, Stephen M. 2013.‘Contact with Gays and Lesbians and Same-Sex Marriage Support: the Moderating Role of

Social Context.’Social Science Research42(4): 1156–1166.

Moon, Dawne. 2004.God, Sex, and Politics: Homosexuality and Everyday Theologies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and James T. Harrison. 2006.‘Religion and Public Opinion About Same-Sex Marriage.’

Social Science Quarterly87:340–360.

Perry, Samuel L. 2010.‘The Effects of Race, Religion, and Religiosity on Attitudes Towards Transracial Adoption.’Journal

of Comparative Family Studies41(5): 837–854.

Perry, Samuel L. 2011.‘Contact, Congregations, and Children of Color: The Effects of Interracial Contact in Religious

Settings on Whites’Attitudes towards Transracial Adoption.’Journal of Comparative Family Studies42(6): 851–869.

Perry, Samuel L. 2013a.‘Multiracial Church Attendance and Support for Same-Sex Romantic and Family Relationships.’

Sociological Inquiry

83:259–285.

Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States 401

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Sociology Compass10/5 (2016), 391–403, 10.1111/soc4.12370 Perry, Samuel L. 2013b.‘Are Interracial Daters More Supportive of Same-Sex Unions?’The Social Science Journal50(2):

252–256.

Perry, Samuel L. 2013c.‘Religion and Interracial Romance: The Effects of Religious Afﬁliation, Public and Devotional

Practices, and Biblical Literalism.’Social Science Quarterly94(5): 1308–1327.

Perry, Samuel L. 2013d.‘Racial Composition of Social Settings, Interracial Friendship, and Whites’Attitudes Toward

Interracial Marriage.’The Social Science Journal50(1): 13–22.

Perry, Samuel L. 2013e.‘Religion and Whites’Attitudes Toward Interracial Marriage with African Americans, Asians, and

Latinos.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion52(2): 425–442.

Perry, Samuel L. 2014a.‘Conservative Christians and Support for Transracial Adoption as an Alternative to Abortion.’Social

Science Quarterly95(2): 380–392.

Perry, Samuel L. 2014b.‘More Like Us: How Religious Service Attendance Hinders Interracial Romance.’Sociology of

Religion75(3): 442–462.

Perry, Samuel L. 2014c.‘Hoping for a Godly (White) Family: How Desire for Religious Heritage Affects Whites’Attitudes

toward Interracial Marriage.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion53(1): 202–218.

Perry, Samuel L. 2015.‘Bible Beliefs, Conservative Religious Identity, and Same-Sex Marriage Support: Examining Main

and Moderating Effects.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12212.

Perry, Samuel L., and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2015a.‘Same-Sex Adoption as a Welfare Alternative? Conservatism,

Neoliberal Values, and Support for Adoption by Same-Sex Couples.’Journal of Homosexuality62(12): 1722–1745.

Perry, Samuel L., and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2015b.‘Christian Nationalism, Racial Separatism, and Family Formation:

Attitudes Toward Transracial Adoption as a Test Case.’Race and Social Problems7(2): 123–134.

Perry, Samuel L., and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2015c.‘Christian Nationalism and White Racial Boundaries: Examining

Whites’Opposition to Interracial Marriage.’Ethnic and Racial Studies38(10): 1671–1689.

Perry, Samuel L., and Andrew L. Whitehead. Forthcoming.‘Religion and Public Opinion Toward Same-Sex Relations,

Marriage, and Adoption: Does the Type of Practice Matter?’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion.

Phua, Voon Chin, and Gayle Kaufman. 2003.‘The Crossroads of Race and Sexuality: Date Selection Among Men in

Internet‘Personal’Ads.’Journal of Family Issues24(8): 981–994.

Putnam, Robert D., and David E. Campbell. 2010.American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.NewYork:Simon&

Schuster.

Qian, Zhenchao, and Daniel T. Lichter. 2011.‘Changing Patterns of Interracial Marriage in a Multiracial Society.’Journal of

Marriage and Family73(5): 1065–1084.

Regnerus, Mark. 2003.‘Moral Communities and Adolescent Delinquency: Religious Contexts and Community Social

Control.’The Sociological Quarterly44(4): 523–554.

Robnett, Belinda, and Cynthia Feliciano. 2011.‘Patterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet Daters.’Social Forces89(3):

807–828.

Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2007.The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions, and the Changing American Family.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rosenfeld, Michael J., and Byung-Soo Kim. 2005.‘The Independence of Young Adults and the Rise of Interracial and

Same-Sex Unions.’American Sociological Review70:541–562.

Rowatt, Wade C., Jordan LaBouff, Megan Johnson, Paul Froese, and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2009.‘Associations between

Religiousness, Social Attitudes, and Prejudice in a National Random Sample of American Adults.’Psychology of Religion

and Spirituality1

:14–24.

Ryan, Scott, Laura Bedard, and Marc Gertz. 2004.‘Florida’s Gay Adoption Ban: What Do Floridians Think?’University

Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy15:261–283.

Scheitle, Christopher P., and Nicole Cornell. 2015.‘Hearing Clergy Speak About Social and Political Issues: Examining the

Effects of Religious Tradition and Personal Interest.’Social Science Quarterly96(1): 148–160.

Scheitle, Christopher P., and Bryanna B. Hahn. 2011.‘From the Pews to Policy: Specifying Evangelical Protestantism’s

Inﬂuence on States’Sexual Orientation Policies.’Social Forces89(3): 913–934.

Sherkat, Darren E., Kylan M. de Vries, and Stacia Creek. 2010.‘Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.’

Social Science Quarterly91(1): 80–98.

Sherkat, Darren E., Melissa Powell-Williams, Gregory Maddox, and Kylan M. de Vries. 2011.‘Religion, Politics, and

Support for Same-Sex Marriage in the United States, 1988–2008.’Social Science Research40:167–180.

Stanley, Scott M., Sarah W. Whitton, and Howard J. Markman. 2004.‘Maybe I Do: Interpersonal Commitment and

Premarital or Nonmarital Cohabitation.’JournalofFamilyIssues25(4): 496–519.

Stark, Rodney. 1984.‘Religion and Conformity: Reafﬁrming a Sociology of Religion.’Sociological Analysis45(4): 273–282.

Stark, Rodney. 1996.‘Religion as Context: Hellﬁre and Delinquency One More Time.’Sociology of Religion57(2): 163–173.

Steinbugler, Amy. 2012.Beyond Loving: Intimate Racework in Lesbian, Gay, and Straight Interracial Relationships. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Thomas, Jeremy N., and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2015.‘Evangelical Elites

’Anti-Homosexuality Narratives as a Resistance

Strategy against Attribution Effects.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion54(2): 345–362.

Thornton, Arland, William G. Axinn, and Daniel H. Hill. 1992.‘Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and

Marriage.’American Journal of Sociology98:628–65.

402 Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Sociology Compass10/5 (2016), 391–403, 10.1111/soc4.12370 Wang, Hongyu, and Grace Kao. 2007.‘Does Higher Socioeconomic Status IncreaseContact Between Minorities and Whites?

An Examination of Interracial Romantic Relationships among Adolescents.’Social Science Quarterly88(1): 146–164.

Whitehead, Andrew L. 2010.‘Sacred Rites and Civil Rights: Religion’s Effect on Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Unions and

the Perceived Cause of Homosexuality.’Social Science Quarterly91:63–79.

Whitehead, Andrew L. 2014a.‘Male and Female He Created Them: Gender Traditionalism, Masculine Images of God, and

Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Unions.’Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion53:479–496.

Whitehead, Andrew L. 2014b.‘Politics, Religion, Attribution Theory, and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Unions.’Social

Science Quarterly95:701–718.

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Joseph O. Baker. 2012.‘Homosexuality, Religion, and Science: Moral Authority and the

Persistence of Negative Attitudes.’Sociological Inquiry82(4): 487–509.

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry. 2014.‘Religion and Support for Adoption by Same-Sex Couples: The

Relative Effects of Religious Tradition, Practices, and Beliefs.’Journal of Family Issues. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0192513X14536564.

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry. 2015.‘A More Perfect Union? Christian Nationalism and Support for Same-

Sex Unions.’Sociological Perspectives58(3): 422–440.

Yancey, George. 2001.‘Racial Attitudes: Differences in Racial Attitudes of People Attending Multiracial and

Uniracial Congregations.’Pp. 185–206 inResearch in the Social Scientiﬁc Study of Religion,editedbyD.L.

Moberg and R. L. Peidmont. Leiden, UK: Brill.

Yancey, George. 2007a.‘Homogamy Over the Net: Using Internet Advertisements to Discover Who Interracially Dates.’

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships24(6): 913–930.

Yancey, George. 2007b.Interracial Contact and Social Change. New York: Lynne Reinner.

Yancey, George. 2009a.‘

Crossracial Differences in the Racial Preferences of Potential Dating Partners: A Test of the

Alienation of African Americans and Social Dominance Orientation.’The Sociological Quarterly50:121–143.

Yancey, George. 2009b.‘Unequally Yoked: How Willing Are Christians to Engage in Interracial and Interfaith

Dating?’Pp. 115–141 inInterracial Relationships in the 21st Century, edited by E. Smith and A. Hattery. Durham:

Carolina Academic Press.

Yancey, George, and Richard Lewis Jr. 2009.Interracial Families: Current Concepts and Controversies. New York: Routledge.

Religion and Non-traditional Families in the United States 403

ofSociology Compassisthe property ofWiley- Blackwell anditscontent maynot

copied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's

express

writtenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for

individual

use.