Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced antigay bias | Hacker News Reader

Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced antigay bias

pnas.org

61 pointslaurex79 comments

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

My thoughts, too. If you've got to pick one, the much more parsimonious explanation would be that people's attitudes are influenced by the attitudes of their friends and acquaintances.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both. I'm sure people's ethical judgments are influenced by the law, too. It's the main reason I can think of why, for example, alcohol tends to be so very much more socially acceptable than marijuana in places where the one is legal and the other is not.

Sure, I also believe it is a mix of both. But, this study is probably overestimating the degree to which the legalization is responsible for the change in attitudes.

Also, it is probably "only" accelerating a change that was going to happen anyway. For example, there were times and places when divorce was legal, but did not become "accepted" socially for a generation or several. So, I don't think the causation primarily goes from legalization-->social attitudes.

But, I agree it's probably a mix.

Yeah I think the science is flaky but the intuition is so strong I'll give it a pass :/

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.

>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.

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.

That was my opinion 10-15 years ago. Which was despite what the professional fainting goats left claimed the best thing to do about gay marriage was a full court press to force it through after which the issue would just quickly disappear.

Baumeister had a pretty interesting idea on where antigay bias comes from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701...

> 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.

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.

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?

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

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

One based purely on the law and not any other reason?

I don't think so. People already have a bias against tobacco smokers and that doesn't have any criminal law component. Habitually smoking (or vaping) any substance is viewed as a vice and a moral shortcoming. It also tends to make a person smell bad and people naturally feel a bias against bad smells.

The fact that smokers are accustomed to the smell and don't notice it is also frustrating. It's an externality.

Pot smoking is another issue that becomes utterly uncontroversial when normalized.

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

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com