Confronting Sexual Stigma and : Theory and Practice Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. University of California, Davis

This is a preprint of a paper that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Social Issues. Minor changes may be made to the paper in the course of copy editing.

AUTHOR NOTE. I am grateful to the National psychologists’ contributions to court cases Institute of Mental Health, the Monette-Horwitz challenging state sodomy laws are described. It Trust, and the University of California at Davis is argued that confronting sexual stigma will not for the support they have provided for my only address an important social problem but research over the years, and to the American will also enrich scientific understanding of Psychological Association for the opportunities human behavior. it has afforded me for communicating scientific knowledge to policymakers. I also express my Kurt Lewin is famous for his admonition that appreciation to my friends and colleagues in the theoretically oriented psychologists should “not worlds of academia, research, policy, and look toward applied problems with highbrow advocacy – too numerous to name individually – aversion or with a fear of social problems” and whose work has provided me with inspiration that applied researchers should recognize that and guidance throughout my professional career. “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” This paper is dedicated to Jack Dynis, who helps (Lewin, 1944/1964, p. 169). As in so many me to integrate theory and practice in my own domains of human behavior, this advice has life, and makes it immeasurably richer in the considerable relevance to the contemporary process. Correspondence should be addressed to problems of sexual stigma and prejudice and to Gregory Herek, Department of Psychology, social scientists’ attempts to understand and University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, confront them. Davis, CA 95616. In the Lewinian spirit, the present article addresses some theoretical and applied aspects of this social problem at both the individual and Abstract structural levels of analysis. In the realm of This article explores theoretical and applied application, I highlight some key issues in questions that are relevant to social scientists’ research addressing the reduction of sexual efforts to understand and confront sexual prejudice and the mitigation of its impact at the stigma. A framework is presented for individual level, and describe some of my own conceptualizing such stigma as a cultural empirical research in this area. At the structural phenomenon with structural and individual level, I describe work by the American manifestations. The latter include enacted Psychological Association (APA) to stigma and felt stigma, as well as internalized communicate the findings from such research to stigma, which encompasses self-stigma among the courts, and I describe some specific amicus sexual minorities and sexual prejudice among curiae briefs on which I collaborated. heterosexuals. Insights suggested by the model Such applications of science are best pursued for reducing sexual prejudice are discussed. At with theoretical guidance. Toward that end, I the structuralPrepublication level, the framework highlights Draft describe a conceptual framework that I have processes whereby legitimates and been developing for thinking about sexual perpetuates sexual stigma and the power prejudice and related phenomena in their differentials that it creates. Social and cultural context (for further elaboration, see behavioral scientists roles’ in working to Herek, in press-a; Herek, in press-b). I do not eliminate heterosexism are discussed, and label this framework a theory because it does not

1

offer testable hypotheses. However, it provides a and many other societies know that homosexual useful vocabulary, points to important parallels desires and behaviors are widely regarded in and interrelationships among phenomena, and negative terms relative to . They highlights key research questions. Thus, I hope it are aware of the malevolent meets Lewin’s criterion of practicality. And, routinely attached to individuals whose personal although it does not yet constitute a true theory, identities are based on same-sex attractions, it helps to integrate insights from the behaviors, relationships, or membership in a psychological study of prejudice as an attitude community. Thus, sexual stigma with insights from sociological theory and is conceptualized here as a cultural phenomenon research on stigma as a cultural, group-level that exists independently of the attitudes of any phenomenon. In that respect, I hope it one individual. It creates the social context in contributes to the advancement of general theory which such attitudes are formed, maintained, in this area. expressed, and changed. To begin, it is important to note two ways in Lay accounts of stigma tend to focus on the which the stigma and prejudice directed at particular condition or attribute that marks its sexual minorities in the contemporary United bearers as diverging in an undesirable way from States and elsewhere are distinct from parallel society’s understanding of normalcy. By phenomena directed at racial, ethnic, and contrast, social psychological accounts religious minorities (see also Fiske & Taylor, in emphasize the social processes through which a press). First, under most circumstances, an stigmatized condition acquires its meaning in individual’s is not readily different situations (Goffman, 1963; see also apparent to casual observers, and many sexual Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Jones et al., minorities attempt to regulate the extent to 1984). In the case of sexual stigma, these which others are aware of their minority status. culturally constructed meanings have evolved As discussed below, the concealable nature of over time – and currently are changing rapidly – sexual orientation creates important parallels as a product of complex social processes (e.g., between heterosexuals and sexual minorities in Herek, in press-b). As with all types of stigma, how sexual stigma is experienced and they are grounded in society’s power relations, manifested. Second, in contrast to prejudice which means that nonheterosexuals have less based on race, ethnicity, religion, and many power than heterosexuals, that is, less access to other statuses, sexual prejudice is not generally valued resources, less influence over others, and regarded as undesirable or inappropriate less control over their own fate (Link & Phelan, throughout U.S. society. Although the 2001). legitimacy of sexual stigma is increasingly contested, condemnation and intolerance of Structural Manifestations of Sexual Stigma sexual minorities remain strong in many sectors Like other forms of stigma, sexual stigma of society. This too has important theoretical and manifests itself both in the institutions of society practical ramifications. and in individuals. At the structural level, society’s institutions and ideological systems The Conceptual Framework legitimate and perpetuate sexual stigma and the At the core of the framework is the construct of differentials in status and power that it creates. I sexual stigma, defined here as the negative label this aspect of sexual stigma heterosexism. regard, inferior status, and relative Adapting Link and Phelan’s (2001) definition of powerlessnessPrepublication that society collectively accords , Draftheterosexism can be to any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, understood as a cultural ideology embodied in relationship, or community. Sexual stigma is institutional practices that work to the socially shared knowledge about disadvantage of sexual minority groups even in ’s devalued status in society. the absence of individual prejudice or Regardless of their own sexual orientation or discrimination. personal attitudes, people in the United States Within society’s institutions – including

2

religion, the law, and medicine – heterosexism actions such as the use of antigay epithets, has historically legitimized the inferior status of shunning and ostracism of sexual minority sexual minorities relative to heterosexuals. It individuals, and overt discrimination and continues to justify and perpetuate power violence. In my own research, I have been differentials between heterosexuals and sexual especially interested in extreme forms of enacted minority individuals through at least two general sexual stigma, such as violent victimization of processes. First, it promotes a heterosexual sexual minorities, property crimes against them, assumption (i.e., all people are presumed to be and other forms of overt harassment and abuse. heterosexual) and thereby renders gay, lesbian, During the 1980s and 1990s, I collected data and bisexual people invisible in most social from several community samples (Herek, 1993; situations. Second, when people with a Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Herek, Gillis, nonheterosexual orientation become visible, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997) which, in combination heterosexism problematizes them. with other community and campus surveys (e.g., Nonheterosexuals, homosexual behavior, and Berrill, 1992; Herek & Sims, 2008), indicated same-sex relationships are presumed to be that substantial numbers of sexual minority abnormal and unnatural and, therefore, are adults have been the target of harassment and regarded as inferior, as requiring explanation, abuse because of their sexual orientation. The and as appropriate targets for hostility, main limitation of these data was that they were differential treatment and discrimination, and obtained from convenience samples whose even aggression. By contrast, heterosexuals are representativeness of the sexual minority regarded as prototypical members of the population cannot be known. category people, and heterosexual behavior and In a 2005 survey, however, I obtained data from different-sex relationships are presumed to be a national probability sample of self-identified normal and natural (Hegarty & Pratto, 2004; for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. In that sample, a more detailed discussion of specific aspects of about 21% of the respondents had experienced heterosexism, see Herek, Chopp, & Strohl, violence or a property crime based on their 2007). sexual orientation at least once during their adult It is noteworthy, however, that as lesbian, gay, life (Herek, in press-c). were the most and bisexual people have increasingly come to likely group to report that they had experienced be recognized as a minority group whose criminal victimization: About 38% of gay men members are entitled to recognition not simply reported experiencing either antigay violence or as human beings but also as well-functioning property crimes, compared to 11-13% of members of society who deserve full citizenship lesbians, bisexual men, and bisexual women. and equal rights, discriminatory practices and The survey also yielded data about other forms policies have begun to lose their claims to moral of harassment and abuse that are commonly righteousness. In other words, heterosexism’s experienced by sexual minorities. For example, legitimacy in the United States and elsewhere is 13% of respondents reported having objects increasingly contested (e.g., Kelman, 2001). thrown at them because of their sexual Psychology has played an important role in this orientation, 23% had been threatened with process, a point that is discussed in a later violence, and 49% had experienced verbal section. abuse. As with criminal assault and property Individual Manifestations crimes, gay men were the group most likely to Of Sexual Stigma experience such attacks (Herek, in press-c). The Prepublicationsame survey also revealed Draft that employment and The conceptual framework highlights three key housing discrimination are widespread. About manifestations of sexual stigma among 11% of the sample reported having been the individuals. target of discrimination because of their sexual Enacted Stigma orientation, with lesbians and gay men more Enacted sexual stigma refers to the overt likely to have experienced it (16% and 18%, behavioral expression of sexual stigma through respectively) than bisexual women and men (7%

3

and 4%, respectively; Herek, in press-c; see also stigma will be enacted in different situations and Badgett, Lau, Sears, & Ho, 2007). under various circumstances. Because people generally wish to avoid being the target of Enacted stigma exacts a significant stigma enactments, felt stigma often affects psychological toll from its targets. In addition to behavior. inflicting physical injury and property loss, for example, hate crimes are associated with greater Its manifestations among sexual minorities psychological trauma for the victims than are include high levels of stigma consciousness other kinds of violent crime. In the first study of (Pinel, 1999) and threat (Bosson, its kind, my UC Davis colleagues and I recruited Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004). Felt stigma also a large community sample of sexual minority motivates sexual minority individuals to use adults (N = 2,259) and compared those who had various stigma management strategies, including been the victims of a crime against their person attempts to pass as heterosexual, to preemptively based on their sexual orientation with those who avoid enactments of stigma (Herek, 1996). had experienced a violent crime that was Although such coping strategies can reduce unrelated to their sexual orientation. Among the one’s risks for discrimination and attack, they gay men and lesbians, those who had can also significantly disrupt the lives of experienced antigay violence manifested stigmatized individuals, limit their behavioral significantly higher levels of depressive options, reduce their opportunities for social symptoms, traumatic stress symptoms, anxiety, support, heighten their psychological distress, and anger compared to those who had and increase their risk for physical illness (Cole, experienced comparable crimes during the same 2006; Herek, 1996; Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & time period that were unrelated to their sexual Krowinski, 2003). orientation (Herek et al., 1999). Other studies In my previously cited national survey, I asked have similarly found that sexual minority sexual minority respondents about their victims of hate crimes have elevated levels of expectations that nonheterosexual individuals psychological distress (Mills et al., 2004; will encounter discrimination or differential Szymanski, 2005). treatment in various situations. In their The most obvious targets of enacted stigma are responses, most manifested some degree of felt sexual minority individuals. Their friends, stigma. More than one third agreed with the family, and close associates can also be at risk, statement, “Most people where I live think less experiencing what Goffman (1963) termed a of a person who is [gay/lesbian/bisexual].”1 courtesy stigma. Because sexual orientation is About one fourth disagreed that “Most concealable, however, anyone can be labeled employers where I live will hire openly homosexual or bisexual in a social interaction. [gay/lesbian/bisexual] people if they are Thus, all heterosexuals are potentially qualified for the job.” Roughly 40% agreed that vulnerable to enactments of sexual stigma. This “Most people where I live would not want has important implications for understanding a someone who is openly [gay/lesbian/bisexual] to second individual manifestation of sexual take care of their children.” Overall, 55% gave stigma, felt stigma. at least one response indicating felt stigma (Herek, in press-c). Felt Stigma People need not be a target of enacted stigma in Because a person’s sexual orientation is usually order for sexual stigma to affect their lives. concealable and, consequently, remains Indeed, Prepublicationthe knowledge that enacted stigma can ambiguous in many Draft social interactions, occur under certain circumstances often heterosexuals also manifest felt stigma. Like motivates people to modify their behavior in sexual minority individuals who attempt to pass order to avoid such enactments. This is the as “straight,” some heterosexuals use self- essence of felt stigma (Scambler & Hopkins, 1986), defined here as an individual’s 1 The item wording matched the respondent’s expectations about the probability that sexual preferred self-label.

4

presentation strategies to avoid being labeled over the past three decades reveal trends toward homosexual or bisexual. Such strategies include less condemnation and dislike, sexual prejudice avoiding gender nonconformity (Bosson, remains widespread in the United States.2 In Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005; Herek, 1986) response to a General Social Survey question and refraining from physical contact with same- about sexual relations between two adults of the sex friends (Roese, Olson, Borenstein, Martin, & same sex, for example, a majority (57% in 2004) Shores, 1992). Felt stigma sometimes even has consistently regarded homosexual behavior motivates individuals to enact sexual stigma as “always wrong.” In the American National against others to prove to their peers that they Election Studies, the average feeling are heterosexual. This pattern is especially thermometer ratings for “gays and lesbians” common among males, who may enact stigma to have remained below the neutral score of 50 (the establish that they are “real men” (Herek, 1986; mean score was 49 in 2004) and, compared to Kimmel, 1997). the public’s feelings toward other groups, thermometer scores for “gays and lesbians” have Internalized Stigma ranked near the bottom of the list. My own Felt stigma results from the knowledge that national surveys have consistently shown that homosexuality is stigmatized, regardless of substantial numbers of heterosexuals regard gay whether or not the individual endorses such men and lesbians as disgusting and consider stigma or accepts it as legitimate. By contrast, homosexuality to be wrong and unnatural (e.g., internalized stigma is an individual’s personal Herek, 1994, 2002a). acceptance of sexual stigma as a part of her or his own value system and self-concept. Like Can sexual prejudice target heterosexuals? At enacted and felt stigma, it is manifested by both this point, it is appropriate to ask whether the sexual minorities and heterosexuals. current conceptual framework allows for sexual prejudice against heterosexuals by sexual I use the term self-stigma to refer to internalized minorities. In a strictly psychological sense, sexual stigma among sexual minorities. With anyone can manifest prejudice against another self-stigma, the minority individual’s self- person because of the latter’s sexual orientation. concept is congruent with the stigmatizing Sexual minority individuals can be prejudiced responses of society (e.g., Jones et al., 1984). He against heterosexuals, just as heterosexuals can or she accepts society’s negative evaluation of be prejudiced against lesbian, gay, and bisexual homosexuality as warranted and, consequently, people. However, it is not useful to equate these harbors negative attitudes toward the self and two forms of sexual prejudice because, as toward her or his own homosexual desires. Self- discussed above, prejudice against sexual stigma also has been labeled internalized minorities is part of a larger cultural complex. It (Weinberg, 1972), internalized represents an individual’s endorsement of an heterosexism (Szymanski & Chung, 2003), and ideological system that disempowers sexual internalized homonegativity (Mayfield, 2001). minorities, creates institutional barriers to their Not surprisingly, self-stigma often has important full participation in society, and fosters negative consequences for the physical and enactments of stigma against them, including psychological well-being of sexual minority extreme violence. By contrast, prejudice against individuals (Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, heterosexuals lacks institutional and societal 2003). support. Heterosexuals do not constitute a For heterosexuals, internalized stigma is socially devalued and disempowered group. manifestedPrepublication as sexual prejudice, whereby one’s They do not routinely encounterDraft discrimination, attitudes toward sexual minorities are congruent with the stigmatizing responses of society. This 2 My comments here are based on my own phenomenon has also been labeled homophobia, examination of national survey data in publicly homonegativity, and heterosexism (for a available archives (especially the Roper Center discussion of these and related terms, see Herek, at the University of Connecticut), as well as 2004). Although public opinion data collected published sources.

5

hostility, and bias because of their sexual Yet another gender-linked pattern is that orientation. In sum, the difference between the heterosexual men tend to respond to sexual two types of sexual prejudice is sexual stigma. minorities in terms of whether the latter are male When prejudice rests on a cultural foundation of or female, whereas heterosexual women tend to stigma, it has meaning and significance that it respond in terms of the target’s orientation lacks when it is simply an expression of group. In a U.S. national telephone survey in individual attitudes. which respondents provided separate feeling thermometer ratings for gay men, lesbians, Correlates of sexual prejudice. Empirical bisexual men, and bisexual women, I found that research has identified a group of demographic, the heterosexual female respondents rated psychological, and social variables that are bisexuals significantly less favorably than they reliably correlated with heterosexuals’ attitudes rated homosexuals, regardless of gender. By toward gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals (Herek, contrast, heterosexual men rated sexual minority 1984, 1994, 2002b, in press-a, in press-b). Many males less favorably than sexual minority of these correlates are also common to racial, females, regardless of whether the target was ethnic, religious, and other (Duckitt, bisexual or homosexual (Herek, 2000). 1992). Two of them are especially relevant to the current discussion. A second important correlate of heterosexuals’ attitudes is the extent of their personal contact First, heterosexual men and women in the with sexual minority individuals. Heterosexuals United States differ in the valence and strength who report personally knowing gay men or of their attitudes toward homosexuality and lesbians express significantly more favorable sexual minorities, and this gender gap displays attitudes toward gay people as a group than do three principal patterns: (a) women tend to heterosexuals who lack such contact (Herek & express more favorable and less condemning Capitanio, 1996; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). attitudes than men toward gay people; (b) in the Contact is most likely to be associated with aggregate, attitudes toward gay men tend to be lower levels of sexual prejudice when more hostile than attitudes toward lesbians; (c) heterosexuals know multiple sexual minority the most negative attitudes are those expressed individuals, when those contacts include by heterosexual men toward gay men (e.g., emotionally close relationships, and when the Herek, 2000, 2002a; Kite & Whitley, 1998). relationships include open discussion of what it Gender differences have also been observed in means to be a sexual minority (Herek, in press- the cognitive dynamics underlying attitudes b; Herek & Capitanio, 1996). toward homosexuality. In national telephone surveys with probability samples of English- Individual Interventions: speaking U.S. adults, I have found that Confronting Sexual Prejudice heterosexual men’s self-reported attitudes toward gay people – especially lesbians – are The conceptual framework summarized above dramatically affected by the order in which the provides a useful road map for social scientists questions are asked, whereas heterosexual who are studying sexual stigma and prejudice. It women’s responses largely are not (Herek, also offers insights with potentially important 2002a; Herek & Capitanio, 1999). When practical implications for confronting sexual questions about lesbians followed identically stigma at the structural level and sexual phrased items about gay men in a 1999 survey, prejudice at the individual level. In the present for example, 59% of the male respondents section, some of these insights are briefly agreed Prepublicationthat “Sex between two women is just discussed. Draft plain wrong.” By contrast, the proportion First, by framing sexual prejudice as the agreeing with that statement was only 42% internalization of sexual stigma – and thus among heterosexual males who answered the learned from an early age, anchored in strong lesbian items first, a difference of 17 points affect and longstanding beliefs, and repeatedly (Herek, 2002a). reinforced by society over the course of development – the framework highlights the

6

extreme difficulty inherent in trying to change or harboring sexual prejudice violates this self- eradicate it. Efforts to confront sexual prejudice concept (Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, are made even more difficult by the processes 1991). But what makes this conflict sufficiently underlying heterosexism. As a consequence of compelling to motivate a heterosexual individual the heterosexual assumption and the to undertake the cognitive effort of reducing her problematizing of nonheterosexuals, sexual or his sexual prejudice? minorities often remain invisible and many For many heterosexuals, the motivation may individual heterosexuals are unlikely to critically well come from having close friendships with examine their own sexual prejudice and its lesbians and gay men. As noted above, empirical underlying assumptions. The deep-seated nature research indicates that heterosexuals’ personal of sexual prejudice suggests that relatively brief relationships with sexual minorities are or superficial interventions are not likely to have especially likely to be associated with low levels a substantial impact on it in most situations. For of sexual prejudice when they include open now, rather than trying to create such discussion about the lesbian, gay, or bisexual interventions, perhaps social scientists might person’s experiences as a sexual minority. Close better devote their efforts to observing naturally relationships that include such discussion occurring instances of prejudice reduction provide not only the motivation but also the among heterosexuals with the goal of identifying knowledge and psychological resources that the psychological, social, and cultural factors heterosexuals need to generalize the positive that facilitate it. feelings they hold toward a specific friend or Related to this point, the present conceptual family member to sexual minorities as a group framework offers another potentially valuable (Pettigrew, 1998). Thus, facilitating such insight. By framing heterosexuals’ sexual relationships may be one of the most potent prejudice and sexual minorities’ self-stigma as strategies available for reducing sexual manifestations of internalized stigma, it suggests prejudice. Further motivation and support for an that similar psychological processes might play individual’s efforts at sexual prejudice reduction important roles in eliminating both of them. can come from other heterosexuals who have Sexual minority individuals typically must already been successful in this regard. The scrutinize and change a myriad of longstanding gender gap in prejudice, described above, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and behavioral suggests that heterosexual women are more patterns in the course of coming out and likely than men to have overcome their overcoming self-stigma. Heterosexuals must go internalized sexual stigma. Such women may be through a similar process in rejecting their own especially effective at encouraging their sexual prejudice. Thus, studying how sexual husbands, sons, brothers, and heterosexual male minorities overcome their self-stigma may yield friends to confront their own sexual prejudice. valuable insights into the process of prejudice A third insight from the framework is that sexual reduction among heterosexuals. prejudice can be usefully distinguished from Drawing this parallel, however, raises another attitudes toward heterosexism. Heterosexuals’ question. For sexual minorities, the motivation attitudes toward sexual minorities are distinct to eliminate self-stigma arises from the conflict from their attitudes toward policies concerning, between a negative evaluation of one’s sexuality e.g., employment nondiscrimination laws, – to the point even of self-loathing – and a need military personnel policy, and marriage equality. to establish and maintain a positive feeling This distinction underlies the notion of toward thePrepublication self. Accepting and embracing one’s tolerance, that is, support Draft for the basic rights of homosexual or bisexual orientation is often a all groups, even those that one dislikes matter of psychological survival. For (Jackman, 1977). However, it has often been heterosexuals, the motivation to change one’s absent in social psychological research on sexual attitudes toward sexual minorities often arises prejudice. For example, many scales measuring from a conflict between an image of oneself as sexual prejudice combine assessments of open and tolerant, and the perception that attitudes toward sexual minorities with policy

7

attitudes (Herek, in press-b). disorder had always been based on value-laden assumptions derived from sexual stigma rather Support for a distinction between prejudice and than science. It also reflected a recognition of policy attitudes can be found in empirical changing social norms about sexuality and the research showing that the public’s attitudes role of sexual minorities in society (Bayer, 1987; toward gay men and lesbians do not fully Minton, 2002). account for the variation in their attitudes toward policies implicating sexual minorities (Strand, The APA moved quickly to endorse the 1998; see also Brewer, 2003; Wood & psychiatrists’ actions, passing a resolution that Bartkowski, 2004). For example, in a 2005 stated, in part: “Homosexuality per se implies no national telephone survey, with sexual prejudice impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or statistically controlled, heterosexuals’ antigay general social and vocational capabilities: policy attitudes were predicted significantly by Further, the American Psychological their egalitarian values, moral traditionalism, Association urges all mental health professionals and political conservatism (Herek, in press-b). to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental An important implication of this hypothesis is illness that has long been associated with that marshalling popular support for striking homosexual orientations” (Conger, 1975, p. down policies that perpetuate sexual stigma may 633). The same resolution put the APA on not require the elimination of sexual prejudice. record opposing discrimination, called for Even individuals who are high in sexual legislation to protect the rights of gay people, prejudice might be convinced to oppose and urged “the repeal of all discriminatory discriminatory policies, e.g., if those policies are legislation singling out homosexual acts by perceived as violating norms of tolerance. consenting adults in private” (p. 633). The psychiatrists had already passed a similar Although it may be possible to eliminate some resolution. aspects of heterosexism without first eradicating sexual prejudice, the conceptual framework Thus, in the course of reversing its longstanding suggests that eliminating sexual prejudice will position that homosexuality was a form of ultimately require the eradication of sexual psychopathology, the mental health profession stigma, including the latter’s structural committed itself to undoing some of the harm manifestations. Historically, psychologists have that the illness model had inflicted on gay made important contributions to this effort, as people. We moved from providing one of the discussed in the next section. central justifications for denigrating sexual minorities to promulgating the position that Structural Interventions: homosexuality is a normal variant of human Confronting Heterosexism sexual expression – one that is no more Over the course of the twentieth century, the inherently associated with psychopathology than stance of American psychology and psychiatry is heterosexuality. toward homosexuality changed dramatically. This new position included a call for eliminating The mental health professions and behavioral sodomy laws, which still existed in most states. sciences shifted from playing a central role in Such laws, which regulated private sexual legitimizing sexual stigma to using their conduct between consenting adults, were rooted collective knowledge and expertise to challenge in a particular model of sexuality that had many of its structural manifestations. evolved over the last millennium and which A watershedPrepublication moment came when the American derived from religious teDraftachings. It defined the Psychiatric Association’s Board of Directors only permissible form of sex as vaginal voted to remove homosexuality from its intercourse between a husband and wife when Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental conception might occur. All other sexual acts Disorders (DSM) in 1973. This decision were placed in the proscribed category of reflected the profession’s acknowledgment that sodomy, and were considered unnatural and the classification of homosexuality as a mental sinful. Sodomy encompassed not only

8

homosexual behaviors, but also masturbation, The story of the 17-year journey from Bowers to heterosexual sex between unmarried partners, Lawrence provides a case study in confronting bestiality, oral or anal sex between a husband structural sexual stigma, and illustrates how and wife, and sex with the wife on top of the social scientists can play a role in such husband. Sodomy laws often carried the death challenges. penalty, and were imported from Europe to the American colonies. All states had some version Bowers v. Hardwick of a sodomy law from the mid-19th century until The Georgia sodomy law was one of many that fairly late in the twentieth century (for a review criminalized oral and anal sex between same-sex of the history of sodomy laws, see Chauncey, and different-sex partners alike. Michael 2004). Hardwick had been arrested in his Atlanta home after a police officer (who had been admitted to Although criminal prosecutions for private the home by a houseguest) peered through sexual behavior between consenting adults were Hardwick’s partially open bedroom door and rare, the sodomy laws were an important pillar of heterosexism. They were regularly used as a saw him engaging in oral sex with a male justification for denying employment to lesbians companion. With assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, Hardwick ultimately and gay men, denying child custody to gay and brought a suit against the state Attorney General, lesbian parents, discriminating against gay Michael Bowers, challenging the law’s organizations, barring sexual minority immigrants from entering or remaining in the constitutionality (for a detailed account of U.S., and keeping gay people out of the U.S. Hardwick’s story, see Irons, 1988). military. They were also regularly cited to argue The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in its that, because the behavior that defines 1985-86 term, and the APA filed an amicus brief nonheterosexuals as a minority can itself be jointly with the American Public Health considered criminal, gay men and lesbians Association. That brief detailed the current state should not be granted legal protections of the of scientific thinking and empirical research sort guaranteed to other minorities (Leslie, about homosexuality, explaining that the sexual 2000). conduct made illegal by the Georgia statute was common in both heterosexual and homosexual The APA’s major involvement with challenges relationships, and was neither pathological nor to the constitutionality of state sodomy laws involved the submission of amicus briefs to the harmful to the individual. Rather, the brief U.S. Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick argued, such behaviors play a key role in maintaining intimate relationships, which in turn (1986) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), as well as are important for the psychological well-being filing briefs in the intervening years for cases of heterosexual and homosexual individuals that successfully challenged sodomy laws in the alike. The brief also explained that state courts of Kentucky, Arkansas, and Tennessee.3 I had the privilege of helping to homosexuality is not a psychological disorder write those briefs, in which we sought to inform and it rebutted arguments by the Georgia Attorney General that the statute was an the Court about current scientific knowledge effective deterrent to the spread of AIDS related to homosexuality and sexual orientation. (American Psychological Association, 1986). By a 5-4 majority, the Court upheld the Georgia 3 In 1984, the APA had filed a brief related to an statute, declaring that states can legally regulate appeal Prepublicationfrom New York to the U.S. Supreme the private sexual behavior Draft of consenting adults. Court in a case involving the state’s sodomy law This outcome was made all the more (New York v. Uplinger, 1984). Although the disappointing by later revelations that Justice specific legal questions involved in Uplinger Powell had initially sided with the justices who differed from those in Bowers v. Hardwick and wanted to overturn the statute but then changed subsequent cases, the APA’s Uplinger brief his vote (Lewis, 1993). Justice Powell provided a starting point for its Bowers brief. commented that he had never personally known

9

any gay people. Ironically, several of his law the sodomy laws, the Bowers opinions clerks over the years had been gay but, out of articulated and reinforced many facets of concern for their careers, none had disclosed that heterosexism. fact to Justice Powell (Murdoch & Price, 2001). Lawrence v. Texas Three aspects of the majority opinion by Justice An opportunity to challenge the Bowers v. White and the concurring opinion by Chief Hardwick decision came fairly quickly, by Justice Burger are especially relevant to the Supreme Court standards. In 1998, John present article. First, reflecting the heterosexual Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in assumption and the problematization of sexual minorities that are central to heterosexism, the Texas for having consensual sex in Lawrence’s opinions addressed only homosexual conduct bedroom. The Texas sodomy law was similar to Georgia’s in that it criminalized oral and anal even though the Georgia statute made both sex. Unlike the Georgia statute, however, the heterosexual and homosexual sodomy illegal. As Texas law applied only to conduct between Justice White framed it, “The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a people of the same sex. In a lengthy series of fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage appeals, the lower courts refused to overturn the law, citing Bowers v. Hardwick as precedent. in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the Lawrence and Garner finally appealed to the many States that still make such conduct illegal U.S. Supreme Court which heard the case in the and have done so for a very long time” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, p. 190). Second, both spring of 2003. opinions found the source for their legal For several reasons, legal experts believed it reasoning in another pillar of heterosexism, viz., might be possible to overturn Bowers v. religious and moral traditions. Justice White Hardwick at this time. First, many states had wrote that proscriptions against homosexual eliminated their sodomy laws, either through the conduct “have ancient roots” (p. 194). Chief legislative process or because state courts had Justice Burger asserted that “To hold that the act found them to be in violation of the state of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as constitution. (As noted above, the APA a fundamental right would be to cast aside submitted amicus briefs in several of the state millennia of moral teaching” (p. 197). court cases.) Second, gay people had become much more openly integrated into American life, Third, the opinions constructed same-sex sexuality as something very different from and public opinion surveys revealed widespread heterosexuality, declaring that it has no opposition to antigay discrimination. Third, the membership of the Supreme Court had changed relationship to family. Justice White wrote, “No since 1986, and a 1996 ruling by the Court in a connection between family, marriage, or case that overturned an antigay Colorado voter procreation on the one hand and homosexual initiative (Romer v. Evans, 1996) suggested it activity on the other has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent” was more receptive to gay issues than in the past (p. 191). Elaborating further on this theme, he (e.g., Tribe, 2004). In addition, many legal scholars regarded the Bowers v. Hardwick equated homosexual behavior with incest and opinion as not well reasoned and considered it heterosexual adultery, predicting that if the court an embarrassment to the Court. were to decide that the constitution protects the right to “voluntary sexual conduct between The APA, American Psychiatric Association, consenting adults, it would be difficult, except and National Association of Social Workers by fiat, Prepublicationto limit the claimed right to homosexual jointly filed an amicus brief,Draft one of more than conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution two dozen such briefs that were filed on both adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even sides in the Lawrence case. As in Bowers v. though they are committed in the home” (p. Hardwick, the APA brief summarized the 194). current state of scientific knowledge relevant to the case, citing an extensive list of empirical Thus, as they were giving renewed legitimacy to studies and literature reviews in support of its

10

conclusions. Although some arguments were the Court majority had approached Bowers v. same as for Bowers v. Hardwick, a much larger Hardwick. body of scientific research on sexual orientation “To say that the issue in Bowers was was available to inform the Lawrence brief than simply the right to engage in certain had been the case 17 years earlier. In addition, sexual conduct demeans the claim the consistent with the Texas statute, the Lawrence individual put forward, just as it would brief focused on research about homosexuality demean a married couple were it to be (American Psychological Association, 2003). said marriage is simply about the right The brief stressed three major conclusions from to have sexual intercourse....When behavioral and social science research findings. sexuality finds overt expression in First, homosexuality is a normal form of human intimate conduct with another person, sexuality. In connection with this point, the brief the conduct can be but one element in explained why and how sexual orientation is a personal bond that is more enduring. important to the individual; how sexual The liberty protected by the orientation develops, and the fact that most Constitution allows homosexual people do not perceive their sexual orientation to persons the right to make this choice” be a choice; and the mental health professions’ (p. 567). recognition that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Second, trying to legally suppress Justice Kennedy also noted that the continuance sexual intimacy among same-sex partners of Bowers as precedent “demeans the lives of deprives gay men and lesbians of the homosexual persons” (p. 575), and asserted that opportunity to participate in fundamental aspects “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, of human experience. In this regard, the brief and it is not correct today” (p. 578). Near the discussed the importance to gay men and end of the opinion, he wrote “The petitioners are lesbians of sexual intimacy and committed entitled to respect for their private lives. The relationships; the centrality of the specific State cannot demean their existence or control behaviors proscribed by the Texas statute to their destiny by making their private sexual sexual intimacy and, therefore, to the intimate conduct a crime” (p. 578). These statements relationships that are at the core of lesbian and represent a dramatic break with the Bowers gay families; the similarities between gay and Court’s view of gay people, and a substantial heterosexual intimate relationships; and the erosion of heterosexism in the legal realm. ability of gay men and lesbians to be good What was the impact of the APA briefs on the parents. Third, sodomy statutes – such as the Court? In 1986, Justice Blackmun cited the APA Texas law – reinforce prejudice, discrimination, brief in his impassioned dissent to Bowers v. and violence against gay men and lesbians. Hardwick. Subsequently, some of the state Related to this point, the brief presented research courts relied on information from the APA brief findings on the discrimination, prejudice, and in overturning their sodomy laws. The APA violence routinely encountered by gay people, brief was not explicitly cited in the written and discussed how antisodomy statutes reinforce opinions for the Lawrence case, although some and help to perpetuate those enactments of of Justice Kennedy’s recurring themes – his sexual stigma. recognition of the humanity of gay men and In June of 2003, in a decision that marked a lesbians, and the fact that sexuality is central to major victory in the struggle for the rights of personal identity and intimate relationships – sexual minorities,Prepublication the Court declared the Texas were repeatedly stressed Draft in it. Although we do law unconstitutional by a 6-3 majority not know whether and to what extent the brief (Lawrence et al. v. Texas, 2003), reversing played a role in shaping the outcome of the Bowers v Hardwick. Justice Kennedy’s majority Lawrence case, what matters is that it was filed. opinion was sweeping in its language and its As a joint effort by the largest mental health recognition of the basic humanity of gay people. professional associations in the United States – This is evident in his criticism of how the 1986 whose memberships also include many of the

11

country’s leading behavioral scientists – the discussion of the social science data supporting brief illustrated just how far psychology and these arguments, see Herek, 2006). psychiatry have come in their understanding of The state courts ruled against same-sex couples , their renunciation of sexual in New York and Washington. In New Jersey, stigma, and their willingness to work for the the state supreme court ruled unanimously that elimination of heterosexism. same-sex couples must be granted the same Marriage Equality rights and responsibilities as different-sex married couples. However, a majority ruled that The ink had barely dried on Justice Kennedy’s same-sex couples do not have a constitutionally decision when questions began to be raised protected right to marry, and that the state could about its impact on marriage laws. Indeed, the remedy existing inequalities by allowing same- Justices addressed this question in their sex couples to form civil unions. In California, opinions, with Justice Scalia’s dissent the San Francisco weddings led to multiple interpreting the majority opinion as leading lawsuits, which were eventually consolidated inevitably to marriage equality (an outcome not into a single case. A lower court judge ruled that to his liking), and Justice Kennedy denying that same-sex couples are legally entitled to marry such a conclusion was in any way inevitable. under the California constitution, but was Justice O’Connor, who wrote a separate overturned on appeal. The case is before the concurring opinion, made a point of separating state supreme court as this article goes to press, the Lawrence decision from the marriage issue. and similar cases are pending in Iowa, Less than six months after the Lawrence Maryland, and Connecticut. Meanwhile, decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oregon, Court cited it in their ruling that prohibiting Washington, among other states, have enacted same-sex couples from marrying violated the legislation that grants varying degrees of state constitution. A few months later, the mayor recognition to same-sex couples, and other state of the city and county of San Francisco directed legislatures are considering such statutes as this the County Assessor to issue marriage licenses article goes to press. to same-sex couples, and officials in Multnomah As noted above, the legitimacy of sexual stigma County (OR) took similar action. Similar events is increasingly contested. Laws and policies that happened on a smaller scale in New Mexico and do not recognize same-sex couples, or that New York. Thus began a period of intense legal, afford them differential status compared to political, and cultural focus on the issue of heterosexual couples, are currently a principal marriage equality (Herek, 2006). focus for challenges to heterosexism. Because In 2004, I assisted in drafting a new brief that much of the debate in this area concerns intimate the APA submitted to most of the state courts relationships, parenting, family dynamics, and considering issues of marriage equality for the personal impact of sexual stigma – same-sex couples, including New Jersey, phenomena that have been extensively studied Washington, and New York. Those briefs by behavioral and social scientists – an ongoing summarized the social science research related role clearly exists for us in communicating our to three major lines of argument: (1) In knowledge to policy makers and jurists. In doing psychological terms, intimate same-sex so, we will continue to fulfill our longstanding relationships are not fundamentally different commitment “to take the lead in removing the from different-sex relationships. (2) Gay and stigma of mental illness that has long been lesbian Prepublicationcouples are currently raising children, associated with homosexual Draft orientations” and are just as capable as heterosexual couples (Conger, 1975, p. 633). in this regard. (3) Marriage confers a variety of Conclusion: Theory and Practice tangible and intangible benefits that have important effects on psychological and physical Thirty-five years ago, homosexuality was health; because they cannot marry, same-sex officially classified as a mental disorder and it couples are currently denied these benefits (for a was widely assumed that psychology and

12

psychiatry could assist gay, lesbian, and bisexual G.M. Herek & K.T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: people mainly by helping them in their (usually Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men unsuccessful) attempts to become heterosexual. (pp. 19-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Today, we understand that these outmoded Bosson, J. K., Haymovitz, E. L., & Pinel, E. C. beliefs were based on unfounded assumptions (2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects grounded in sexual stigma, and psychologists of stereotype threat on self-reported versus on-verbal have dedicated themselves to removing that anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 247-255. stigma and its legacy. We are addressing this goal through our theory and empirical research Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Taylor, J. as well as through our engagement with N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social society’s institutions. Psychology, 89, 552-565. As we continue to tackle the applied problem of Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). eradicating sexual stigma and prejudice, it is Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political useful to recall that, consistent with the knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A Lewinian perspective, this work will also enrich framing-based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, our understanding of basic social psychological 67, 173-201. processes. In addition to being significant social Chauncey, G., Jr. (2004). "What gay studies problems, sexual stigma and prejudice are taught the court": The historians' amicus brief in interesting sociological and psychological Lawrence v Texas. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and phenomena. Because they are linked to a Gay Studies, 10, 509-538. concealable characteristic and are currently Cole, S. W. (2006). Social threat, personal situated at the center of cultural debates about identity, and physical health in closeted gay men. In core values, they raise a variety of intensely A.M. Omoto & H.S. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual interesting theoretical questions for social orientation and mental health: Examining identity scientists. Thus, the task of confronting sexual and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (pp. 245-267). Washington, DC: American stigma and prejudice represents not only an Psychological Association. important practical application of our knowledge to a significant social issue. It is also a Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year theoretically challenging area of inquiry that will 1974: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council yield valuable insights into human social of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620- behavior. 651. References Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). . In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey American Psychological Association. (1986). (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 Bowers v. Hardwick: Brief for amicus curiae, (4th ed.) (pp. 504-553). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Supreme Court of the United States. Washington, Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & DC: Author. Elliot, A. J. (1991). Prejudice with and without American Psychological Association. (2003). compunction. Journal of Personality and Social Lawrence v. Texas: Brief for amicus curiae, Supreme Psychology, 60, 817-830. Court of the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Duckitt, J. H. (1992). The social psychology of Badgett, M.V.L., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. prejudice. New York: Praeger. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (in press). Social sexual orientation and gender identity cognition: From brains to behavior. New York : discrimination. Retrieved June 26, 2007, from McGraw-Hill. D:\Library\Main_Library\Main_Library3\Badgett_etPrepublication Draft al_2007_Workplace-bias.pdf Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American NJ: Prentice-Hall. psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis (Rev. ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism, Berrill, K. T. (1992). Antigay violence and and the interpretation of group differences. Sex Roles, victimization in the United States: An overview. In

13

50, 445-453. Herek, G. M. (in press-c). Hate crimes and Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond "homophobia": A stigma-related experiences among sexual minority social psychological perspective on attitudes toward adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, a national probability sample. Journal of 10(1-2), 1-21. Interpersonal Violence. Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). "Some of masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the my best friends": Intergroup contact, concealable social construction of gender and sexuality. American stigma, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563-577. and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424. Herek, G. M. (1993). Documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus: The Yale Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). Sex Sexual Orientation Survey. Journal of differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians Homosexuality, 25(4), 15-30. and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 348-360. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of Herek, G. M., Chopp, R., & Strohl, D. (2007). empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Sexual stigma: Putting sexual minority health issues Greene & G.M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay in context. In I. Meyer & M. Northridge (Eds.), The psychology: Theory, research, and clinical health of sexual minorities: Public health applications (pp. 206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and Sage. transgender populations (pp. 171-208). New York: Springer. Herek, G. M. (1996). Why tell if you're not asked? Self-disclosure, intergroup contact, and Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. orientation and mental health. Annual Review of In G.M. Herek, J. Jobe , & R. Carney (Eds.), Out in Clinical Psychology, 3, 353-375. force: Sexual orientation and the military (pp. 197- Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). 225). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of gender: Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945-951. and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, 251-266. E. K. (1997). victimization among Herek, G. M. (2002a). Gender gaps in public lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: Prevalence, opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion psychological correlates, and methodological issues. Quarterly, 66, 40-66. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195-215. Herek, G. M. (2002b). Heterosexuals' attitudes Herek, G. M., & Sims, C. (2008). Sexual toward bisexual men and women in the United States. orientation and violent victimization: Hate crimes Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264-274. and intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual males in the United States. In R.J. Wolitski, Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond "homophobia": R. Stall, & R.O. Valdiserri (Eds.), Unequal Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the opportunity: Health disparities among gay and twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social bisexual men in the United States (pp. 35-71). New Policy, 1(2), 6-24. York: Oxford University Press. Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same- Irons, P. H. (1988). The courage of their sex relationships in the United States: A social convictions: Sixteen Americans who fought their way science perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 607- to the Supreme Court. New York: Free Press. 621. Jackman, M. R. (1977). Prejudice, tolerance, and Herek, G. M. (in press-a). Sexual prejudice. In T. attitudes toward ethnic groups. Social Science Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice . Mahwah, N.J.: PrepublicationResearch, 6(2), 145-169. Draft Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, Herek, G. M. (in press-b). Understanding sexual H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. conceptual framework. In D. Hope (Ed.), New York: W. H. Freeman. Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Identities: The 54th Nebraska Symposium Kelman, H. C. (2001). Reflections on social and on Motivation. New York : Springer. psychological processes of legitimization and

14

delegitimization. In J.T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The Murdoch, J., & Price, D. (2001). Courting justice: psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on Gay men and lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 54- York: Basic Books. 73). New York: Cambridge University Press. New York v. Uplinger, 467 U.S. 246 (1984). Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85. construction of gender identity. In M.M. Gergen & Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta- S.N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of gender (pp. 223-242). New York: Routledge. Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Do Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of toward homosexuality? A conceptual and Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128. methodological analysis. In G.M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding Roese, N. J., Olson, J. M., Borenstein, M. N., prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals Martin, A., & Shores, A. L. (1992). Same-sex (pp. 39-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. touching behavior: The moderating role of homophobic attitudes. Journal of Nonverbal Lawrence et al. v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Behavior, 16, 249-259. Leslie, C. (2000). Creating criminals: The injuries Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). inflicted by "unenforced" sodomy laws. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 35(1), 103- Scambler, G., & Hopkins, A. (1986). Being 181. epileptic: Coming to terms with stigma. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8, 26-43. Lewin, K. (1964). Problems of research in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in Strand, D. A. (1998). Civil liberties, civil rights, social science (pp. 155-169). New York: Harper and and stigma: Voter attitudes and behavior in the Row. (Original work published 1944). politics of homosexuality. In G.M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding Lewis, N. A. (1993, May 25). Rare glimpses of prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals judicial chess and poker. New York Times, pp. A1, (pp. 108-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. A8. Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Heterosexism and Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Griffin, J. L., & sexism as correlates of psychological distress in Krowinski, A. C. (2003). Stressors for gay men and lesbians. Journal of Counseling and Development, lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma 83, 355-360. consciousness, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 716-729. Szymanski, D. M., & Chung, Y. B. (2003). Feminist attitudes and coping resources as correlates Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). of lesbian internalized heterosexism. Feminism and Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, Psychology, 13, 369-389. 27, 363-385. Tribe, L. H. (2004). Lawrence v Texas: The Mayfield, W. (2001). The development of an "fundamental right" that dare not speak its name. Internalized Homonegativity Inventory for gay men. Harvard Law Review, 117(6), 1893-1955. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 53-76. Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and homosexual. New York: St. Martin's. mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research Wood, P. B., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004). evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697. Attribution style and public policy attitudes toward gay rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 58-74. Mills, T. C., Paul, J., Stall, R., Pollack, L., Canchola, J., Chang, Y. J., Moskowitz, J. T., & Catania, PrepublicationJ. A. (2004). Distress and depression in men Draft who have sex with men: The Urban Men's Health Study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 278- 285. Minton, H. L. (2002). Departing from deviance: A history of homosexual rights and emancipatory science in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

15