Columbia prof says Prop 8 adds to gay health woes

Jan 15, 2010 By LISA LEFF , Associated Press Writer
In this Jan. 11, 2010 file photo, couples from left, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami leave the federal courthouse after their first day in court in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)

(AP) -- A Columbia University social scientist says California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriages contributed to the social stigma that makes gay men and lesbians more susceptible to depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Testifying in the federal trial to decide if Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, Ilan Meyer said the measure sent a message of "You are not welcome here" to gay people by erecting a barrier to a "desirable and respected" institution.

"People in our society have goals that are cherished by all people, that are part of the social convention," Meyer said. "We are all raised to think there are certain things we want to achieve in life, and this Proposition 8 says if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot achieve this particular goal."

The trial, the first in a federal to examine the constitutionality of state gay marriage bans, is scheduled to resume Friday with testimony from Michael Lamb, a Cambridge University psychologist who will discuss gay and lesbian parenting and the benefits to children of allowing same-sex couples to marry.

During Thursday's session, Howard Nielson Jr., a lawyer for the measure's sponsors, mounted an exhaustive cross-examination, using Meyer's own research showing that black and Latino gays had fewer mental health problems than white gays to try to undercut the professor's assertion. Meyer had hypothesized in his study that black and Latino gays would have more because of their dual minority identities.

Nielson also challenged Meyer on his statement that California's domestic partnership law, which grants same-sex couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities as married spouses, was itself a source of stigma and emotional distress. Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group, sponsored the 2003 law.

"Do you believe Equality California would sponsor legislation that would stigmatize (gay) individuals," Nielson asked.

"No, but that doesn't change my answer," Meyer said. "Having a second type of an institution that is clearly not the one that is designed for most people clearly is stigmatizing."

Earlier Thursday, an economist for the city of San Francisco testified that preventing gays from getting married costs the city millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services.

Explore further: Willingness-to-pay for monorail services in Penang, Malaysia

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Marriage's effect on lesbian and gay couples studied

Mar 17, 2009

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships, including marriage, influences how gay and lesbian baby boomers prepare for late life and end of life issues. Unmarried same-sex couples may suffer greater fear and anxiety around ...

AMA votes to seek repeal of 'don't ask,don't tell'

Nov 10, 2009

(AP) -- The American Medical Association on Tuesday voted to oppose the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and declared that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities.

Recommended for you

P90X? Why consumers choose high-effort products

5 hours ago

Stuck in traffic? On hold for what seems like an eternity? Consumers often face situations that undermine their feelings of control. According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, when a person's sense of con ...

Overdoing it: Multiple perspectives confuse consumers

5 hours ago

Television commercials for luxury vehicles pack a lot in their 30-second running times: the camera offers quick shots of the soft leather upholstery, the shiny colors, the state-of-the-art entertainment system, ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

croghan26
not rated yet Jan 15, 2010
"Earlier Thursday, an economist for the city of San Francisco testified that preventing gays from getting married costs the city millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services."

I read most of that testimony elsewhere and it seemed to me to be a very weak argument. It is positied on SF being unique in having SS marriages, as there would be an influx of gays going there to be wed.

If SS marriages were universal, as in throughout the state then it seems to me that this economic advantage would be canceled.