By L. K. Regan
Published Jun 10, 2009

Actions have consequences. This is particularly true of political actions, the consequences of which will ripple through lives far distant from the original moment of law or policy-making. With this in mind, two Emory University Economists set out to examine one possible unintended but deadly consequence of laws banning same-sex marriage. Their question: Do such laws increase rates of HIV infection? Their answer: Yes.

Economics professors Andrew Francis and Hugo Mialon collaborated on a study to examine the effects of intolerance on the rate of HIV infections in the U.S. To measure tolerance, they used the results of the General Social Survey, a national survey conducted since 1973 that measures attitudes toward gays. As the authors point out, in the 1990s, as those attitudes became more tolerant, HIV rates slowed. Their theory, therefore, is that, "tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate." In other words, being able to come out in the light of day may lead to more sex—but it actually leads to overall safer sex.

Tolerance is clearly a net good for HIV rates. But what is the impact of intolerance? As the authors point out, in the same period in which overall tolerance rose, bans on gay marriages or civil unions were passed. These bans have a two-way relationship to tolerance: "Tolerance may affect the passage of a ban, and conversely, a ban may affect tolerance. On one hand, intolerant attitudes may raise the demand for a law banning gay marriage; on the other hand, the passage of such a law may codify norms and, thereby, increase intolerance, since the law may send a signal that intolerance is prevalent in society." So, in the study, such bans act as "a proxy for intolerance," as the authors write, and as such allow them to calculate the impact of those laws on infection rates. This impact is fairly small—the study's results found an increase of four cases per 100,000. Still, that number is against the reduction of merely one in 100,000 cases brought about by increases in tolerance from the 1970s to the 1990s. As study author Mialon said, "Intolerance is deadly. Bans on gay marriage codify intolerance, causing more gay people to shift to underground sexual behaviors that carry more risk."

As the authors are clearly aware, this is a timely moment to point out that there are serious consequences to bans on gay marriage. Referring to the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold Prop 8, co-author Andrew Francis said, "Laws on gay marriage are in flux and under debate. It's a hot issue, and we are hoping that policymakers will take our findings into account." We are hoping so as well.

ActiveAndFit wrote:

I think intolerance in general causes gay men to think less of themselves and worse. There have been several studies that have shown that negative pressure and intolerance from society contributes to depression, suicide, risky behavior, drug addiction. Self loathing and unhappiness goes hand in hand when we can't seem to come to grip with the fact that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I think many gay men don't even know how they are subconsciously effected by external and internal homophobia.

Jun 11 3:30 AM

lilZ wrote:

"Do such laws increase rates of HIV infection? Their answer: Yes. "

I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of BS. You can't sit there and say that just because we can't marry HIV rates are increasing. Even if we were allowed to marry, I'm sure the majority of the gay population will still be having mindless sex. *eye roll*

Jun 11 12:58 AM

lepontneuf wrote:

To respond to the above comment: Personal responsibility and strength is diminished, along with self-esteem, when intolerance is around.

And now to the article: This study may conclude interesting and obvious facts, but the majority of the population against gay marriage couldn't care less about the spread of HIV, as it's a "gay problem and they deserve it." This study certainly isn't going to interest those people in the least, nor does the information this study produced have a policy context in which to be applied.

Rational information is useless in the face of irrational thought.

Jun 11 12:48 AM

DuluthMN wrote:

Never learning how to date and have relationships, never having to accept personal responsibility for one's actions; never caring what happens to the other guy who you didn't bother to ask what his name was or vice versa...this article is so typical of these gay 'think tanks' that believe that marriage legalization is going to be this great fix-all for everyone. So what about all of us who haven't even MET anyone for over ten years? Are we suddenly going to meet the right person once it's legal? What the hell good is marriage legalization for those of us who aren't finding anyone?

Most of the problems we have were rooted many years ago before any of this even came to the table. It has more to do with a very small amount of relationship-ready gay men to choose from, little to no adult social and dating skills, and how to navigate through a potential relationship after missing out on over 20 years of experience that our straight peers of the same age have over us. Let's face it - very few of us know what we are doing. We go about relationships the wrong way, then are stunned when they don't last more than six months. We won't accept any advice or help from those who say we are using superficial, juvenile routes to find a partner, but then are left wondering what happened once we wake up one morning and find all his stuff gone and no explanation why he left - and isn't coming back. None of these things are signs of healthy adults who are ready for marriage. If you can't sustain a relationship for more than 6-24 months, and all you have are these kinds of relationships for 20-30 years, then something else is very wrong with how gay men are doing things. HIV/AIDS has been around now for over 30 years, in some cases they are saying it's been around even longer and yet we still have no respect for other gay mens' health as we have no problem infecting other guys because, 'hey, he didn't ask, and why should I have to bring it up'?

What's missing is that

Jun 11 12:37 AM

Tucker_ wrote:

Only idiots would conclude what they have. For example, it is in areas that have the highest levels of tolerance (major cities which have large gay populations) that HIV/AIDS rates are the highest. Anyone with any common sense would conclude that the reason for this is not because of intolerance but rather because there is a culture of promiscuity and licensiousness. This is nearly as stupid as the CDC funding research in Argentina to understand why gay men tend to be more likely to have unprotected sex after leaving bars.

Jun 10 11:58 PM

eron wrote:

Ugh - not very useful to diminish the importance of personal responsibility when it comes to engaging in risky sexual behavior.

Jun 10 6:42 PM