Despite the demonstrated importance of intergenerational ties across the life course, few studies examine relationships between gay men and lesbians and their later life parents and parents-in-law. The present study examines how midlife to later life gay men and lesbians in intimate partnerships conceptualize these intergenerational ties. -- Findings reveal 4 central ways respondents describe supportive parent–child and parent–child in-law relationships: integration, inclusion through language, social support, and affirmations. Findings reveal 3 central ways individuals distinguish strained parent–child and parent–child in-law relationships: rejection in everyday life, traumatic events, and the threat of being usurped. Findings further articulate how intergenerational ambivalence is distinguished through -- experienced by gay men and lesbian women. This study reveals a new lens to view relationships between midlife to later life adults and their aging parents and parents-in-law and further identifies linkages between solidarity–conflict and ambivalence paradigms. Key Words: Ambivalence, Gay men and lesbians, In-law relationships, Intergenerational relationships, Midlife to later life, Solidarity–conflict. -- stigmatized sexual minority status (Averett & Jenkins, 2012; Connidis, 2012). Moreover, gays and lesbians in romantic partnerships also have relationships with their partner’s parents (i.e., “in-laws”). These in-law ties are even less understood, yet may have unique dimensions due to a lack of relationship legality (Biblarz & Savci, 2010). The present study analyzes 50 qualitative in-depth interviews with midlife -- partner’s—parents. The perspectives of both partners in an intimate tie are analyzed in order to achieve multiple vantage points of both the parent–child and “in-law” relationship. The term “in-law” is used in order to most easily demonstrate the nature of relationships between an individual and the intimate partner’s parents. Because same-sex marriage is not legal federally, nor legal in the state where the study took place, there is not necessarily a legal connection between “in-laws” and gay men and lesbians. This term is used for both ease of discussion and because respondents used this term in their interviews. The analysis is framed within the context of intergenerational solidarity–conflict and ambivalence perspectives. Theoretical Approaches to Parent–Child and In-Law Ties Although parent–child and in-law ties have unique dimensions, both types of intergenerational relationships are primarily theorized within a solidarity–conflict perspective (Birditt, Tighe, Fingerman, & Zarit, -- commitment to family obligations), and structural solidarity (e.g., structural contexts) (Bengtson, Giarrusso, Mabry, & Silverstein, 2002). Research demonstrates that parent–child and parent–child in-law relationships are both generally positive (Santos & Levitt, 2007; Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997) with the generations living in close proximity with frequent contact, support exchanges, and emotional closeness (Cooney & Uhlenberg, 1992; Peters-Davis, Moss, & Pruchno, 1999). However, both parent–child and parent–child in-law ties are also shown to have dimensions of conflict (Bengtson et al., 2002; Clarke, Preston, Raksin, & Bengtson, 1999), typified by disagreements on a -- generation should act (Connidis & McMullin, 2002, p. 558). Intergenerational ambivalence posits that solidarity and conflict coexist simultaneously in parent–child and parent–child in-law relationships (Peters, Hooker, & Zvonkovic, 2006); according to recent studies, about 30%–50% of parents and adult children report some degree -- (Fingerman, Hay, & Birditt, 2004). Willson, Kim, Shuey, and Elder (2003) report higher rates of ambivalence in adult children’s relationships with in-laws than in relationships with parents. Gay Men and Lesbian Women’s Intergenerational Relationships -- ties may be high on the dimension of conflict and low on levels of solidarity (Balsam et al., 2008; Kurdek, 2005; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004). This may be particularly salient in the in-law tie; midlife to later life gays and lesbians have restricted access to legal and socially sanctioned marriage relationships, yet parents-in-law are formally predicated on a legally recognized relationship (Oswald, 2002). Notably, however, recent changes in state and federal marriage -- (Hull, 2006; Lannutti, 2007; Ramos, Goldberg, & Badgett, 2009), and a growing body of research suggests that gay men and lesbian women experience supportive and meaningful bonds with parents and in-laws (Fredriksen-Goldsen & Muraco, 2010; Goldberg & Smith, 2011; Oswald, 2002). In addition, gay men and lesbians tend to maintain contact with -- that they are not officially “out” to at least one parent (i.e., they have never discussed their gay/lesbian identity or relationship). However, these respondents believe parents and in-laws are aware of their identity and relationship. Respondents were not required to be “officially out” to their parents/in-laws to be included in the study because research consistently shows that outness is not a discrete event but rather an ambiguous and sometimes indefinable status that -- Fredriksen-Goldsen, Kim, Barkan, Muraco, & Hoy-Ellis, 2013); excluding this group would remove a portion of the sample perhaps most likely to experience parent–child and in-law conflict. Analysis -- line-by-line, data-driven categorization in order to summarize each piece of data as it related to the relationship between adult children and their parents/parents-in-law. Next, the author performed “focused” coding to develop categories regarding adult children’s perceptions of the parent/in-law and child tie by connecting initial line-by-line codes together for conceptual purposes. Descriptions of the parent–child and parent-in-law–child relationship were treated as distinct relationships. In the final stage of analysis, the author created conceptual memos to develop categories and subcategories that related to one another on a theoretical level; these themes form this final stage are discussed below. Although the parent–child and parent-in-law relationships were analyzed as distinct conceptual relationships, there were virtually no differences in the thematic coding of parents and parents-in-law relationships. This is likely due to the dyadic nature of the data wherein both partners describe parents and in-laws in similar ways, as well as the overlapping dynamics of these intergenerational ties within the context of long-term intimate ties. Therefore, we discuss the themes of both types of -- but reflect the range of responses represented in the data. Notably, there were virtually no differences in thematic coding developed from analyzing parent–child and in-law ties; therefore, the analytical themes below are inclusive of both types of relationships unless otherwise noted. -- front row with us. For Terry and others in this sample, parents’ and parents-in-laws’ efforts at inclusion are a clear marker of acceptance. This inclusion affirms and sometimes reveals positive relationships via integration -- The second primary way respondents (n = 16) characterize positive intergenerational relationship is through the use of inclusive language like “daughter,” “son,” or “in-law.” This theme was the only subtheme described primarily in relation to in-laws, as these relationships require explicit decisions regarding language. Christopher describes this theme when discussing how his partner Raymond is “treated like one of my mother’s son-in-laws. And I am the number one sister-in-law.” Similarly, Gus describes that his partner Andrew’s parents have accepted their gay relationship as evidenced by language inclusion: -- father calls Gus one of his sons…. It would be, ‘These are my sons.’ It definitely makes Gus feel more a part of the family.” Although it is possible that the use of the term “son” rather than “son-in-law” may in fact obscure the gay partnership by placing emphasis away from the marker of gayness, Gus and Andrew both understand the use of this language in private and public settings as inclusive. Thus, respondents in this theme demonstrate how the use of language typically used to characterize in-laws in heterosexual relationships provides evidence of acceptance regardless of legal status. -- Respondents (n = 7) report receiving affirmations specifically about their gay or lesbian identity from parents and parents-in-law; these affirmations are deployed as evidence of support. Spencer’s dad demonstrated his support verbally when he could not attend his son’s -- In contrast to omnipresent feelings of rejection and conflict, other respondents (n = 15) use discrete traumatic events to distinguish a relationship with parents and parents-in-law as negative. Gretchen describes that after coming out to her mother, “Her response was to send me an amended will. No letter. No nothing.” Darcy discusses a similar traumatic event that epitomized the negative parent/child and in-law relationship: Carrie’s mother has this brain tumor. She is going to die. This -- As these illustrations suggest, moments of highlighted rejection provide a key way respondents understand themselves as being rejected by a parent/in-law. Threat of being usurped. Although respondents above characterize relationships with parents and in-laws as strained due to omnipresent interactions or punctuated negativity, a minority of respondents (n = 8) believe a parent or in-law is rejecting due to evidence that the couples’ wishes may be usurped if either partner were compromised with a health issue. Ann says that she would marry her partner Jullian: -- In the final theme of the analysis, respondents (n = 17) reveal a parent/in-law as simultaneously supportive (via subthemes of solidarity) and also rejecting (via subthemes of conflict). Although respondents do not use the term “ambivalent” explicitly, their -- She accepted Kristen just fine, [but] you felt like it was a second class treatment. She would always call my brothers-in-law on their birthdays, but she didn’t always call Kristen on her birthday. There was definitely some discrepancies. I know that being gay is not what -- mother just wasn’t emotionally capable of doing that. She accepted her just fine and there was never any discord shown. But it wasn’t this warmth, “Oh you are my wonderful daughter-in-law” either. She didn’t know what to do with her, I guess. These respondents clearly identify both dynamics of support and strain in a parent–child and in-law relationship—a dynamic typified as ambivalence. -- later life parents are central social ties for both generations across the life course (Bengtson et al., 1995); when adult children are partnered, so called “in-law” relationships become an important, albeit unique, intergenerational tie (Willson et al., 2003). However, little is known about these intergenerational ties in the context of a -- communication and special family events can be viewed as an aspect of associational solidarity, whereas being rhetorically identified as family by the use of language such as “daughter” or “son-in-law” may be an aspect of normative solidarity (Bengtson et al., 1995). Becoming integrated into family life through associational and normative -- higher rates of discrimination and homophobia than younger cohorts (Powell, Bolzendahl, Geist, & Steelman, 2010). Therefore, the primacy of integration as a way to understand parents and parents-in-law as supportive may be a finding unique to this population, as notions of integration may be taken for granted by individuals who are not -- child–parent tie is characterized by low levels of support (Dewaele et al., 2011; LaSala, 2001), wherein respondents in this study describe at least one parent/in-law as being supportive in these specific ways. Although support was clearly highlighted through notions of -- Second, although findings reveal a general understanding of a parent or in-law as either supportive or strained, respondent accounts suggest the simultaneous presence of support and strain (i.e., ambivalence) (Connidis, 2012). This was predominantly the case when the parent–child -- both generations. Additionally, the analyses presented here did not reveal categorical differences between accounts of parents versus parents-in-law. This is in line with previous research suggesting that these two types of intergenerational ties are relatively similar in dimensions of solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence (e.g., Willson et -- that included each partners’ account of both their own parent and their partner’s parents in overlapping ways. Future research should attempt to tease out how in-law and parent–child relationships are distinct in the gay and lesbian context. Further, respondents likely experience gradients in the salience of support, strain, and ambivalence—wherein -- beyond the scope of the present study but is an important area for future research. Furthermore, auxiliary analyses were performed to examine how the frequency of contact with a parent or in-law (e.g., how often a parent–child dyad visit, speak over the phone) related to the above themes. Analysis showed that those who have infrequent contact -- these dynamics. Results revealed that those who were not officially “out” were more likely to experience ambivalence and strain with parents or in-laws; surprisingly, no systematic gender findings were revealed, but gender dynamics are an avenue for future research. Finally, the study sample is largely white with high levels of -- [Google Scholar] * Peters-Davis N. D., Moss M. S., Pruchno R. A. (1999). Children-in-law in caregiving families. The Gerontologist, 39, 66–75. :10.1093/geront/39.1.66 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] * Petty R. E., Tormala Z. L., Briñol P., Jarvis W. B. (2006). -- Brace College Publishers. [Google Scholar] * Santos J. D., Levitt M. J. (2007). Intergenerational relations with in-laws in the context of the social convoy: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 827–843. :10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00539.x [Google Scholar] -- York, NY: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar] * Willson A. E., Kim M., Shuey K., Elder G. H. (2003). Ambivalence in the relationship of adult children to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1055–1072. :10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.01055.x [Google Scholar]