In their article “Integrated Approaches to Resolving Same-Sex Dissolutions” published in Conflict Resolution Quarterly (2009, pp. 123-143), authors Frederick Hertz et al. begin with the caution that “Mediating same-sex dissolutions requires a nuanced awareness of how dramatically the legal landscape for lesbian and gay couples has changed in recent years, as well as an ability to demonstrably appreciate and respond to the complex emotional issues at stake in such mediations.”

The authors continue to address the changing legal landscape regarding same-sex unions and, inevitably, same-sex partnership dissolutions. Under this changing paradigm, mediators of same-sex partnership disputes must be aware of the enormous emotional pressure and general distrust of the legal system that same-sex couples are likely to demonstrate when entering into the mediation process. Issues such as the fact that “same-sex couples rely on implied or oral contract claims (palimony) of limited viability or community norms of often-disputed applicability” (p.123) must be understood by the mediator and must be dealt with accordingly.

Additionally, the authors discuss the fact that “further compounding these dichotomies, many lesbians and gay men conceptualize their relationships and the role of each partner differently from what is typical in straight marriages, even with the recent emergence of legally recognized unions” (p.124). In such, meditating same-sex partnership disputes adds a layer of nuanced role confusion that could hinder the mediation process if it isn’t adequately addressed at the beginning of the mediation process.

The authors then review best practices for mediating same-sex partnerships—from getting hired to documenting and finalizing the settlement. Below is a summary of their suggestions:

• Getting hired—Hertz et al. state that same-sex partners will be inclined to expect unfair and prejudiced treatment from any facet of the judicial system, including mediators. For this reason, it is not enough to simply state “I have a good friend who is gay.” Rather, “the mediator must clearly demonstrate an openness and sensitivity to the effects of discrimination as well as genuine familiarity with the issues and complexities facing the couple” (p. 137).

• Addressing issues of fairness and the law—According to the authors, a more open-textured facilitative style of mediation is most appropriate in same-sex partnership disputes. “The absence of gender roles in same-sex relationships demands an analysis of obligations within the context of the relationship itself, not framed in conventional social terms such as husband or wife” (p.139).

• Integrating the relationship narrative into the resolution process—Bringing to surface the underlying tensions that might be otherwise avoided by the parties involved could be the best option in setting up a successful mediation process. According to the authors, “Revealing these tensions should enable the parties to better understand why they are in disagreement, and hopefully see the validity of both points of view without having to agree about who is right.”

• Documenting and finalizing the settlement—Hertz et al. warn that “Because same-sex partners are not federally recognized spouses, asset transfers between partners on dissolution are not statutorily exempt from federal taxation” (p. 141). For this reason, a unique approach to handling taxes after dissolution and transfer of property must be a primary concern when finalizing the settlement.