
Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced antigay bias - laurex
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/18/8846
======
tzs
A recent episode of "Hidden Brain" [1] on NPR covered the massive reduction in
anti-gay bias over the last few decades in the US. A quote from the summary of
episode at the link I gave:

> "This is actually one of the most surprising things in the whole history of
> public opinion," says Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld. "There's more
> and more rapid change in attitudes towards gay rights in the past thirty
> years in the United States than there ever has been in recorded attitudes in
> the United States on any issue."

In the episode itself, they compare how fast attitudes are changing toward
various biases. If anti-gay bias continues shrinking at the rate it is
currently shrinking, it will be under a decade for them to be pretty much
gone.

Biases about black people, on the other hand, would take about 60 years to
mostly go away. Biases about skin tone...about 140 years. Biases based on
ago...over 150 years.

(NOTE: those are not predictions. They are simply illustrations of how rapidly
or slowly those biases are changing right now. It is extremely unlikely that
any particular bias is going to diminish at a constant rate from now until it
is virtually gone).

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709567750/radically-normal-
ho...](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709567750/radically-normal-how-gay-
rights-activists-changed-the-minds-of-their-opponents)

------
mfoy_
If you consider system oppression to be a form of validation for bigots, then
it follows that removing that validation would result in reduced bigotry.

------
jawns
There was a 2017 study that looked at people's attitudes related to
Obergefell:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28758838](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28758838)

One of its interesting findings:

> a five-wave longitudinal time-series study using a sample of 1,063 people
> found an increase in perceived social norms supporting gay marriage after
> the ruling but no change in personal attitudes. This pattern was replicated
> in a separate between-subjects data set.

------
dsfyu404ed
Makes sense. People respect the authority of the law/government to varying
degrees. Of course their opinion is swayed when the government officially
sanctions something. People don't have strong, let alone informed opinions
about tons of things so legality is a signaling mechanism for good/bad.

~~~
umvi
I agree. Many people (perhaps those without religion or some other mechanism
that provides an external moral code) just adapt the law as their moral code:
if it's legal, it's moral; if it's illegal, it's immoral.

Of course, this fact is always obfuscated when talking about drug legalization
because it is harmful to the legalization effort to suggest that legalizing a
drug will lead to increased usage/acceptance of said drug (usually the
opposite claim is made - that legalizing the drug will _reduce_ usage)

------
rossdavidh
So, my two reactions: 1) duh 2) but, proving cause vs. effect seems tricky
here, since which states legalized was in no way assigned randomly. An
accelerating decline in antigay bias would be exactly what we should expect to
happen around the time the legislature or courts see which way the wind is
blowing, and legalize gay marriage. Not that I disbelieve the conclusion, but
this doesn't seem like it would be very convincing evidence if I weren't
already convinced.

~~~
charliesharding
This title is misleading considering their findings. Only in states that were
already moving towards legalization and reduced bias did you see a sharper
reduction after federal legalization. States that weren't moving towards
legalization only dug in their heels and had increased bias after federal
legalization. Looks like another case of the government trying to speak for
everyone with a one-size-fits-all solution and only serving to polarize people
further.

"Although states passing legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias
following legislation, states that never passed legislation demonstrated
increased antigay bias following federal legalization."

~~~
ThirdFoundation
The government (the Supreme Court in this case) wasn't speaking for everyone,
they were merely protecting the rights of a certain segment of the population.
It's an important distinction to make. There was no constitutional basis for
denying same-sex marriage.

~~~
rossdavidh
True that, but that can be completely true, and yet it can be also true that
having it imposed by the courts leads to a backlash, and an increase in anti-
gay bias.

It is sort of like how people never like it when their candidate in an
election loses, but if the courts intervene and disqualify their candidate,
their resentment of the winner is greater. Regardless of whether the courts
were right or not, the fact that a non-electorate authority made the decision,
increases the dissatisfaction with the outcome.

~~~
ThirdFoundation
Good point, I guess the comment to which I responded could be read two
different ways also.

No one likes to be forced to do anything, and any perception of unfairness
could easily elicit a stronger response of resentment or resistance.

I personally think when it comes to protecting rights it may be warranted, but
I definitely see how the situation you explained could also be true. It's a
tough thing to balance.

------
intopieces
Normalization was always the concern for both those for and against same sex
marriage. It was never about the benefits or the sanctity, not really.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Sure, gays who got thrown out into the street after their lifelong partner
died and the parents inherited the house weren't bothered by that in the
least. Keeping the house was never one of their goals.

(Does this need a sarcasm tag? Or can people figure that out on their own?)

~~~
intopieces
The problem you mentioned did not require marriage per se, it just made it
easier. Inheritance and visitation and all the legal stuff could have been
conferred by domestic partnership. Marriage, in this case, was somewhat
besides the point.

Normalization has a much greater impact than property rights.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Many years ago, I read an interesting article about an idealistic young hetero
couple cohabiting. They chose to have a baby together.

The guy began saying "My wife and I just had a baby" so people would actually
congratulate him. When he said "My girlfriend just had a baby" people were all
"Oh, sorry, dude. That sucks."

Trying to arrange health coverage, wills and a zillion other things involved
jumping through so many hoops they were considering getting married because a
lot of those things would be automatic or vastly easier if they were married.

Normalization isn't insignificant. Neither are the 169 rights a gay college
professor stated in one of my classes were conferred by marriage.

~~~
intopieces
>Neither are the 169 rights a gay college professor stated in one of my
classes were conferred by marriage.

None of those rights have meaning without normalization. I think of this,
sometimes, when I consider moving out of California. My husband was in the
hospital once. I wasn't sure he was conscious or not; I had to tell the
receptionist who I was to find out what room he was in. He didn't think twice,
I was able to proceed without incident. Would the same have happened if I
lived in rural Texas? Sure, marriage is legal everywhere for us. The law is on
our side. But the law doesn't mean anything if the people standing between you
and your husband don't respect it.

~~~
DoreenMichele
You need normalization to exercise those rights as effectively as possible.
Certainly, prejudice can mean there is a difference between theoretical de
juris outcomes and de facto actual outcomes.

But normalization without those rights still leaves you unable to do a lot of
things. It leaves you with "You can't visit your husband in the hospital
because policy says _family only_ and the law says you aren't family, even
though no one here is a homophobe. We still can't let you through because we
can get fired for breaking the rules."

You need both things to enjoy a high quality of life. I don't know why you are
arguing otherwise.

Rights without social cooperation certainly hampers your ability to exercise
those rights, but social cooperation without rights is still a big problem.

I could see someone taking the position that normalization implies having the
same rights as a baseline starting point. But I cannot see arguing that
normalization is more important than legal rights and legal rights were never
the point.

I will add the article in question indicates legalizing it is helping to
normalize it. Rights are not some insignificant detail, not by any stretch of
the imagination.

------
obviuosly
Baumeister had a pretty interesting idea on where antigay bias comes from:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X)

> Men compete to amass material resources, with the goal of getting a good sex
> partner.

> Men compete in groups to amass resources, so men see other men not just as
> sexual rivals but also as coalition partners.

> Male homophobia is often not about sex but rather invokes the stereotype
> that a homosexual man will not be an effective coalition partner.

------
danschumann
So the fact that weed is illegal means there could be an anti-smoker bias? One
based purely on the law and not any other reason? Probably. I still say
legalizing pot smokers should be the next civil right.

~~~
beering
Certainly, it would remove a lot of the stigma of pot as contraband and pot
smokers as criminals. Fine, upstanding citizens don't want to be associated
with criminals, right?

~~~
danschumann
True. Like in Pineapple Express when he doesn't like his drug dealer thinking
they are friends.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Regardless of the type of business doing business with friends is generally
ill advised and often leads to hard feelings and broken friendships.

------
lr4444lr
Proving a compelling causal relationship between the first and the second of
those factors is a _very_ tall order, IMHO.

------
bobthechef
I can't read the article b/c of paywall, but I do wonder how they controlled
for legislation vs. the effects of media, subsequent social pressure and
acclimation, the higher likelihood of legislation being passed in a state
already favorably disposed toward SSM, etc. Also, what is the definition of
"anti-gay bias"? My guess is that any critical attitude would be classified as
such which is an ideological tactic i.e. normalization through the repeated
conflation of opposition with bias or even hatred. In any case, the idea that
the government can play a role in normalizing certain behaviors and attitudes
is not surprising. With history as my witness, all kinds of things, good and
bad, have been normalized partly by government backing.

In any case, whether SSM makes sense or should be recognized is not a matter
of purported benefits, but a matter of principle. It doesn't take much
imagination to recall evil deeds that may result in some desired effect. What
matters is whether SSM should _in itself_ be recognized. Note the use of the
word recognition. Marriage is not a manufactured social construct (pace
postmodern), but a natural institution that governments only have the freedom
to recognize. Neither societies nor governments can arbitrarily manufacture
institutions. They can _pretend_ to do so, just as they can pass immoral
"laws", but neither such ersatz laws nor such ersatz institutions have any
legitimacy and thus may and must be freely rejected by citizens (coercion has
forced citizens to simulate assent and submission to such false laws and
institutions, of course).

