ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has been saying that a bill legalizing same-sex marriage should come to a vote in the State Senate even if the measure does not have enough support to pass.

But is this really a good thing for gay rights advocates, a constituency that Mr. Paterson has solidly supported for most of his political career?

Mr. Paterson’s logic, which he explained in separate radio interviews on Thursday morning, is that the public deserves to see where their elected officials stand on an issue as sensitive as same-sex marriage. The bill should be debated on the Senate floor, senators should be forced to take a public position on it, and they should vote it up or down, he said.

“I’m going to put the bill out and just let people fight it out,” Mr. Paterson said in an appearance on the Buffalo station WGR-AM (550). “I would like to see the Legislature just debate the bills that people think are controversial.”

In an earlier appearance on WHAM-AM (1180), Mr. Paterson did not seem concerned that the bill could lose. “If it loses, it loses,” he said. “And let the parties on both sides have their say.”

 See Paterson Wants Public Debates on Gay Marriage

New York 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 -

Jed and Wyatt Lorenzen, openly gay twins who were hired as servers by Los Feliz restaurant Vermont in 2005, today won their sexual harassment suit against the eatery’s owners, another pair of openly gay men, Manuel Mesta and Michael Gelzhiser. Following a nine-day trial, each of the twins was awarded a paltry $1,000 for damages, begging the question of whether anyone really came out of the suit a winner.

In interviews the twins have claimed that Jed was fired from his waitstaff position for turning down sexual advances, while Wyatt was forced to abandon his job when the instances of sexual harassment had gone too far. They claim that the harassment went on repeatedly for more than a year, consisting of not only sexually explicit language but inappropriate touching during a restaurant Halloween party. MORE

A working group formed by the city of San Francisco to address the disproportionate level of HIV infections among black gay men has recommended the development of a center that would offer health services and provide a social space for this often-isolated segment of the community. The group, whose recommendations are based on interviews with black gay men and local and national HIV experts, also wants the city to offer HIV testing and prevention programs in three neighborhoods where most black men make their homes: the Tenderloin, Bayview and Western Addition. Bay Area Reporter (San Francisco)

The Rev. Rick Warren, the megachurch pastor who became a lightning rod for controversy when he was anointed by President-elect Barack Obama to give the premier prayer at the inauguration, has decided to let his prayer speak for him.

Mr. Warren has decided not to grant any interviews before the inauguration next Tuesday, though he has received more than 100 requests for interviews, including strong appeals from competing celebrity television reporters, according to his spokesman, A. Larry Ross (who has also served for years as spokesman for the Rev. Billy Graham).

Mr. Ross’s firm released a statement saying, “Dr. Warren has determined there is no way he could fairly accommodate any interviews at the expense of others, but instead will let his prayer speak for itself.”

 See Rick Warren Chooses Silence
New York Times, United States