The ground trembled again last week, another aftershock of one of the wrenching seismic shifts that always seem to start in California and skitter across the nation’s political and cultural plates. This time it was same-sex marriage, as the state Supreme Court took up the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that outlawed such unions.

The court hearing was the latest chapter in a saga that has enmeshed California, off and on, for nine years. In 2000, voters banned same-sex marriage. Last year, acting after San Francisco became the first city in the state to marry gay couples, the Supreme Court cleared the way for such unions. Opponents returned fire with Proposition 8, which put the ban into the Constitution. Statements of some justices during Thursday’s court hearing indicated that the proposition probably will stand — at least for now.

There was an odd familiarity to it all. As with the modern conservative movement, the antitax rebellion of the 1970s and a host of other less important, if useful, things — the hula hoop comes to mind — California was first in the mix.

Despite our conceit that the sun shines brighter on California’s golden denizens, residents here are really not so different from people everywhere else. Ponder surveys of voters taken last November in California and nationally, and the surprising conclusion is how similar we are. We are less white and more Latino, slightly richer and more educated, and we go to church a bit less. But we resemble the rest of the nation on many other measures — our age range, the number of kids living in our homes, and even our views on whether government, rather than businesses and individuals, should solve problems in a pinch.

The state does differ from the other 49, though, in its quest for change.

“California is the magnet for people from all the states who come here to dream, hope, or fit in,” said Bob Mulholland, who since landing here via Philadelphia and Vietnam 39 years ago has been a Democratic party advisor and unofficial electoral historian.

 See Another seismic shift emanates from California — this time on gay …

Los Angeles Times

 

HIV-positive gay men’s experiences of stigma and rejection by sexual partners strongly influence their involvement in casual sex and discourage them from practicing many risk-reduction strategies, report Sigma Research in their Relative Safety II report published this week.

The men they interviewed wished to balance their desire for sexual pleasure with a need to maintain their sense of moral integrity, but were often unable to avoid sex which could result in HIV transmission.

To follow up a similar study published a decade ago, Adam Bourne and colleagues interviewed 42 gay men with diagnosed HIV about their sexual practices and management of risk. The in-depth, qualitative interviews focused on recent experiences of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), and to take part in the study, men had to have had unprotected sex in the past year. Therefore it’s important to note that the study does not reflect the experiences of the one-third of gay men with HIV who do not practice UAI in any given year.

The researchers attempted to include in the sample a mix of respondents from London and Manchester as well as lower prevalence areas, and also ensure diversity in terms of age and time since diagnosis.

All respondents were aware that they could transmit HIV through unprotected anal intercourse, and almost all said that they would never want to be responsible for doing so. Men more recently diagnosed tended to be particularly preoccupied by this concern, often avoiding sex altogether for a period after diagnosis.

In terms of the other harms which unprotected sex could give rise to, men tended to feel that sexually transmitted infections were rarely serious, although a few were more concerned about hepatitis C. Whilst some recently diagnosed men felt that HIV superinfection was an issue, men who had been diagnosed for longer usually believed that clinicians had deliberately exaggerated its importance.

Of more concern, however, were the emotional, psychological and social harms that unprotected sex could lead to. If men failed to live up to their own ethical guidelines, this could lead to inner turmoil. Moreover, some respondents described the perceived irresponsible behaviour of other HIV-positive men in order to highlight their own moral integrity. Having unprotected anal intercourse posed a threat both to a man’s positive sense of self and to the way in which other gay men saw him.

The researchers argue that men’s concerns about rejection and stigma shape they way they manage risk. Disclosure leaves men vulnerable to significant harm, including violent reactions and anxiety about ex-partners using police investigations as retribution, as well as rejection leading to emotional upset and problems finding sexual partners. In a community that often remains hostile to people with HIV, men’s instinct for self-preservation often leads them to choose behaviours where disclosure is felt to be unnecessary.

For example, many men used saunas, not just because sex was readily available, but also because the men assumed that almost all other sauna users were HIV-positive. Like online chat rooms or HIV support group meetings, saunas were thought to be ‘HIV positive spaces’ where men had implicitly announced their HIV status simply by being there. This allowed men to have unprotected sex there without an explicit discussion of HIV status, but leaving them with their sense of personal integrity intact.

In some settings, some men tried to avoid disclosure but maintain their sense of moral integrity by suggesting to sexual partners that it would be a good idea to use a condom. Nonetheless one man described how these suggestions prompted one sexual partner to ask directly whether he had HIV. When he said yes, the man became angry and left.

Another form of implicit disclosure that men tried was ticking ‘safer sex needs discussion’ on a Gaydar internet profile. Few men explicitly advertised their HIV status on their profile, but might mention it during private instant messaging. The respondents described ambiguities and misunderstandings in disclosure on the internet, but generally found that the internet enabled them to screen potential partners with less fear of disappointment or reprisal.

Nonetheless, the researchers found that men used risk reduction strategies to quite a limited extent. No respondents mentioned reducing the duration of anal intercourse or the impact that viral load or a sexually transmitted infection could have on the risk of transmission. Just a few men discussed the greater risk of infection for the receptive partner or the possible benefit of withdrawing before ejaculation.

Some men did practice some form of sero-sorting (seeking partners of the same HIV status) and respondents said that it allowed them to have uninhibited sex where HIV status did not remain the most salient concern throughout.

Nonetheless the researchers stress that no man exclusively practiced sero-sorting in a way that could guarantee that both partners had the same HIV status. Disclosure was often implicit (by being in a sauna, for example) or was not reciprocal. The respondent may have made an upfront disclosure of HIV status, and assumed that if his partner was ready to carry on without condoms, then he must be positive too.

However the majority of men actually rejected the idea of sero-sorting. It was associated in their minds with high-risk, esoteric practices, and in the words of one respondent, men who are “going spreading it round because they are shagging willy-nilly”. Many men were at pains to distance themselves from this behaviour. They were appalled by the idea that unprotected sex could ever be a regular or planned activity, and so rejected sero-sorting, strategic positioning, withdrawal before ejaculation and other risk reduction strategies.

Nonetheless these same men had all had some unprotected sex. It tended to be described as an exceptional event, explained by circumstances such as substance use or a partner’s insistence. The researchers make it clear that a number of men lacked the self-confidence or negotiation skills to manage such situations. Many men aspired to use a condom every time, but were not able to fall back on risk reduction strategies when, for whatever reason, condoms weren’t used.

In their conclusion the researchers note several consequences of HIV related stigma: a reluctance to disclose and an encouragement to have anonymous sex; some interviewees’ rejection of other HIV-positive men and their behaviour; a desire not to engage with the idea that HIV risk is an integral part of sex; and the reluctance to use risk-reduction strategies.

However they also note that, for many men, there are direct contradictions between their intentions and their behaviour. Many men construct systems of belief about risk that enable them to have the sex they desire, whilst feeling that they are ‘moral enough’. They believe they are behaving responsibly, but HIV transmission may well be taking place.

The researchers recommend tailored prevention interventions for diagnosed men which take account of the centrality of stigma, and discuss unprotected sex in credible and informative ways. Moreover health professionals need to improve their skills in engaging men with these issues.

Reference
Bourne A et al. Relative Safety II : risk and unprotected anal intercourse among gay men with diagnosed HIV. London: Sigma Research 2009.

 

 See Stigma drives HIV-positive gay men’s sexual risk-taking

Aidsmap -

 

Lambda Legal is representing Rita Goodman, a nonbiological mother who was awarded shared custody of the two boys she parented from birth with her former partner. Goodman’s ex–partner and the boys’ biological mother, Siobhan LaPiana, appealed the trial court order that awarded Goodman custody. Goodman and LaPiana planned the boys’ births together during their ten–year committed relationship. LaPiana gave birth but both women equally parented the children. After the couple split, LaPiana began restricting Goodman’s interaction with the boys, despite the parenting agreement they had drafted and signed before the birth of their first child. We argue that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment has no bearing on the court’s authority to order shared custody between former same–sex partners — the same conclusion reached by the Ohio Supreme Court in a similar case last year.

Unfolding in the state Senate today: a proxy battle over same-sex marriage.

The Senate just reconfirmed three justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court, all of whom were among the five-member majority in Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health, which ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

There were objections to the justices from some Republicans, with many citing concerns about what they view as relative loose constructionism in interpretation of the state Constitution. But there wasn’t enough to make a difference.

Associate Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Richard N. Palmer were all confirmed by the same vote total: 28-7, with one senator absent. (The missing senator is Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, who has been absent from the Capitol since the death of his teenage son earlier this month.)

This conclusion isn’t hugely surprising. Senators don’t toss out Supreme Court justices all that often.

And the rumors of some grave comeuppance for those who support same-sex marriage have been, like those of Twain’s death, greatly exaggerated. Lobbying efforts to open the state constitution to a new convention (and thus to direct-initiative lawmaking and a gay marriage ban) or to unseat the pro-marriage chairmen of the Judiciary Committee have come up short.

See Same-sex marriage doesn’t cost justices
TheDay - New London,CT,USA

Unfolding in the state Senate today: a proxy battle over same-sex marriage.

The Senate just reconfirmed three justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court, all of whom were among the five-member majority in Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health, which ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

There were objections to the justices from some Republicans, with many citing concerns about what they view as relative loose constructionism in interpretation of the state Constitution. But there wasn’t enough to make a difference.

Associate Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Richard N. Palmer were all confirmed by the same vote total: 28-7, with one senator absent. (The missing senator is Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, who has been absent from the Capitol since the death of his teenage son earlier this month.)

This conclusion isn’t hugely surprising. Senators don’t toss out Supreme Court justices all that often.

And the rumors of some grave comeuppance for those who support same-sex marriage have been, like those of Twain’s death, greatly exaggerated. Lobbying efforts to open the state constitution to a new convention (and thus to direct-initiative lawmaking and a gay marriage ban) or to unseat the pro-marriage chairmen of the Judiciary Committee have come up short.

See Same-sex marriage doesn’t cost justices
TheDay - New London,CT,USA