Gary J. Gates

GAY AND LESBIAN PARTNERSHIP: EVIDENCE FROM CALIFORNIA*

Much recent research on sexual minorities has used couples-based samples, which—by construction—provide no information on nonpartnered individuals. We present the first systematic empirical analysis of partnership and cohabitation among self-identified gay men and lesbians using two independent, large, population-wwbased data sources from California. These data indicate that 37%–46% of gay men and 51%–62% of lesbians aged 18–59 are in cohabiting partnerships (compared with 62% of heterosexual individuals in coresidential unions at comparable ages). Unlike previous research, we find that white and highly educated gay men and lesbians are more likely to be partnered, and we confirm that same-sex cohabiting partners in our data have demographic characteristics that are similar to California same-sex couples from Census 2000. We also present the first detailed analysis of officially registered domestic partnerships in California. We find that almost half of partnered lesbians are officially registered with the local or state government, while less than a quarter of partnered gay men are officially registered. We conclude with implications of our findings for couples-based research on gay men and lesbians, as well as recommendations for survey data collection.

Density and Creativity in U.S. Regions

Geographers and social scientists have probed the effects of agglomeration and spatial clustering on innovation and economic growth. Economists and others have identified the role of knowledge spillovers in driving the innovation process. Although innovation is thus assumed to be a function of proximity, there has been little systematic research on the role of density in innovation. This research investigates density, and more specifically the density of creative workers, as a key factor influencing regional innovation. It uses principal components analysis to create and implement a composite measure of density and presents a model of innovation as a function of creative density. Statistical analyses including multivariate regression find that density and creativity separately and jointly affect innovation in metropolitan areas. The regression analysis finds a positive relationship between the density of creative workers and metropolitan patenting activity, suggesting that density is a key component of knowledge spillovers and a key component of innovation.

Statewide Estimation of Racial/Ethnic Populations of Men Who Have Sex with Men in the U.S.

Objectives. Men who have sex with men (MSM) bear the greatest burden of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in every state in the U.S., but their populations are poorly defined. We estimated and compared populations of MSM in 2007 by region, state, and race/ethnicity. Methods. We averaged findings from two statistical models we had previously developed to estimate the total state-specific percentage and number of males who were MSM. The models were based, respectively, on state-specific rural/suburban/urban characteristics and an index using state-specific household census data on same-sex male unmarried partners. A third model, based on racial/ethnic ratios from a nationally representative behavioral survey, partitioned these statewide numbers by race/ethnicity. Results. Of an estimated 7.1 million MSM residing in the U.S. in 2007, 71.4% (5.1 million) were white, 15.9% (1.1 million) were Hispanic, 8.9% (635,000) were black, 2.7% (191,000) were Asian, 0.4% (26,000) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.1% (6,000) were Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, and 0.6% (41,000) were of multiple/unknown race/ethnicity. The overall U.S. percentage of males who were MSM (6.4%) varied from 3.3% in South Dakota to 13.2% in the District of Columbia, which we treated as a state. Estimated numbers of MSM ranged from 9,612 in Wyoming to 1,104,805 in California. Conclusions. Plausible estimates of MSM populations by state and race/ethnicity can inform and guide HIV/AIDS surveillance, allocation of resources, and advocacy. They can help in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of HIV prevention programs and other services. Using MSM numbers as denominators, estimates of population-based MSM HIV incidence, prevalence, and mortality rates could help clarify national and state-level epidemic dynamics. Until corroborated by other modeling and/or empirical research, these estimates should be used with caution.

HIV Prevalence Rates Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in the Southern United States: Population-Based Estimates by Race/Ethnicity

States across the U.S. lack effective ways to quantify HIV prevalence rates among men who have sex with men (MSM). We estimated population-based HIV prevalence rates among MSM in the 17 southern states by race/ethnicity. Through 2007, estimated HIV prevalence rates per 100,000 MSM ranged from 2,607.6 among white (non-Hispanic) MSM in Maryland to 41,512.9 among black (non-Hispanic) MSM in the District of Columbia. Black MSM rates significantly exceeded Hispanic and white MSM rates in each state. Significant racial/ethnic disparities in rates persisted in a sensitivity analysis examining the possibility that minority MSM populations had been underestimated in each state. Compared with black, Hispanic, and white non-MSM males, respectively, rates at the regional level were 25.2 times higher for black MSM, 43.0 times higher for Hispanic MSM, and 106.0 times higher for white MSM. State-level analysis of racial/ethnic-specific MSM HIV prevalence rates can help guide resource allocation and assist advocacy.

Changes in sexual risk behavior as young men transition to adulthood.

CONTEXT Understanding how young mens sexual risk behaviors change during the transition from adolescence to early adulthood is important for the design and evaluation of effective strategies to reduce the transmission of HIV and other STDs. METHODS Data from three waves of the National Survey of Adolescent Males (1988, 1991 and 1995) were used to categorize 1,880 respondents into clusters according to sexual risk behaviors. Univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to assess associations between clusters and rates of self-reported STD diagnoses and positive chlamydia tests. RESULTS Two dimensions of sexual risk-taking defined the clusters: partner characteristics and condom use. More than 50% of men remained in low-risk groups over time. In the first two waves, 24-32% of men reported engaging in high-risk behaviors (risky partners, condom nonuse); these behaviors were associated with elevated levels of STD outcomes. Nearly 40% of men who entered a high-risk group in the first two waves transitioned to a lower risk group by the third wave. Nine percent of men either engaged in increasingly risky behaviors or maintained membership in high-risk groups; elevated STD rates characterized both trajectories. Low condom use combined with having multiple partners during adolescence was associated with elevated STD rates in the year preceding the third wave; high condom use coupled with having risky partners was not. CONCLUSIONS The prominence of low-risk behaviors over time suggests that most young men avoid sexual risk-taking. Effective strategies to reduce HIV and STD risk in young men must simultaneously address multiple dimensions of sexual behavior.

INNOVATION, HUMAN CAPITAL, AND CREATIVITY

Innovation has long been understood as a fundamental factor in economic growth. Economists, geographers, and other social scientists have examined the effects of innovation on economic growth, the factors associated with the production of innovations, and the geographic distribution of innovations. Jane Jacobs notes that the capacity to innovate is a product of a local environment or milieu that attracts talented people and is open and creative. Following Jacobs, this paper argues that innovation is a joint product of human capital and creativity. The capacity to innovate is seen to be a function of a region’s ability to attract human capital and to provide low barriers to entry for talented and creative people of all backgrounds. Multivariate models are used to test the joint effects of research and development expenditure, human capital, creativity/diversity, and industry mix on regional innovation. New measures of creativity (the bohemian index) and diversity (the gay index) are introduced. The findings suggest that innovation at the regional level is positively and significantly associated with both human capital and creativity.

Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples

Summary:Though estimates vary, as many as 2 million to 3.7 million U.S. children under age 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and about 200,000 are being raised by same-sex couples.Much of the past decade’s legal and political debate over allowing same-sex couples to marry has centered on these couples’ suitability as parents, and social scientists have been asked to weigh in. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by scholars on both sides of the issue, Gary Gates concludes that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their different-sex counterparts. Any differences in the wellbeing of children raised in same-sex and different-sex families can be explained not by their parents’ gender composition but by the fact that children being by raised by same-sex couples have, on average, experienced more family instability, because most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, one of whom is now in the same-sex relationship.That pattern is changing, however. Despite growing support for same-sex parenting, proportionally fewer same-sex couples report raising children today than in 2000. Why? Reduced social stigma means that more LGBT people are coming out earlier in life. They’re less likely than their LGBT counterparts from the past to have different-sex relationships and the children such relationships produce. At the same time, more same-sex couples are adopting children or using reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and surrogacy. Compared to a decade ago, same-sex couples today may be less likely to have children, but those who do are more likely to have children who were born with same-sex parents who are in stable relationships.In the past, most same-sex couples raising children were in a cohabiting relationship. With same-sex couples’ right to marry now secured throughout the country, the situation is changing rapidly. As more and more same-sex couples marry, Gates writes, we have the opportunity to consider new research questions that can contribute to our understanding of how marriage and parental relationships affect child wellbeing.

Demographics and LGBT Health

The 2012 U.S. presidential election saw, for the first time, the election of a major party candidate who publicly supported same-sex couples’ right to marry. Exit polling from that election found that 49 percent of voters supported legal marriage for same-sex couples in their states, compared with 46 percent who opposed. Furthermore, voters for the first time explicitly endorsed marriage rights for same-sex couples by solid majorities in three states. Contrast this emerging support for same-sex couples with the fact that, since 1998, 30 states have enacted constitutional amendments to limit marriage to different-sex couples. The topic of samesex couples and their status in U.S. society remains a highly visible and contentious policy debate. The recent controversy surrounding the publication of two articles critical of academic literature focused on same-sex parenting (Gates et al. 2012; Marks 2012; Regnerus 2012) suggests that these debates are hardly confined to the public arena and have import within the academy. Citations of substantial amounts of social science literature in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)–related litigation (e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger 2010; In re Golinski 2009; Windsor v. United States 2012) demonstrate that these academic debates matter in forming public policy. It is also important to understand how public policy changes that can either support or further stigmatize sexual minorities might affect LGBT health and well-being. The two articles featured in this issue by Liu, Reczek, and Brown (2013) and Denney, Gorman, and Barrera (2013) make much-needed contributions to our understanding of how same-sex couples and families fare in a society marked by rapid social and legal change. Notably, both articles document health disadvantages for same-sex couples compared with different-sex married couples, disadvantages that cannot be fully explained by differences in socioeconomic status. Same-sex couples in the National Health Interview Survey provide a rare example of a large population-based data source that includes at least a subset of the LGBT population. Because of the relatively large samples, both studies are able to analyze subgroups within samesex couples and document that gender and raceethnicity may be factors that are important to consider with regard to LGBT health. Unfortunately, to get sufficiently large samples, the authors are forced to pool data over a decade of surveys. This type of pooling is an unfortunate necessity in the face of small samples and not uncommon in LGBT research (e.g., Badgett 1995; Berg and Lien 2002; Black et al. 2003; Blandford 2003). A challenge with such pooling is that it potentially masks changes over time in the demographic composition of LGBT individuals that could be related to changes in social climate. An expansive literature (cited in both articles) documents evidence that social stigma toward the LGBT population and same-sex couples likely contributes to poorer health outcomes, especially 474429 HSBXXX10.1177/002214651247442 9Journal of Health and Social BehaviorGates 2013

Estimating populations of men who have sex with men in the southern United States.

Population estimates of men who have sex with men (MSM) by state and race/ethnicity are lacking, hampering effective HIV epidemic monitoring and targeting of outreach and prevention efforts. We created three models to estimate the proportion and number of adult males who are MSM in 17 southern states. Model A used state-specific census data stratified by rural/suburban/urban area and national estimates of the percentage MSM in corresponding areas. Model B used a national estimate of the percentage MSM and state-specific household census data. Model C partitioned the statewide estimates by race/ethnicity. Statewide Models A and B estimates of the percentages MSM were strongly correlated (r = 0.74; r-squared = 0.55; p < 0.001) and had similar means (5.82% and 5.88%, respectively) and medians (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively). The estimated percentage MSM in the South was 6.0% (range 3.6–13.2%; median, 5.4%). The combined estimated number of MSM was 2.4 million, including 1,656,500 (69%) whites, 339,400 (14%) blacks, 368,800 (15%) Hispanics, 34,600 (1.4%) Asian/Pacific Islanders, 7,700 (0.3%) American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 11,000 (0.5%) others. The estimates showed considerable variability in state-specific racial/ethnic percentages MSM. MSM population estimates enable better assessment of community vulnerability, HIV/AIDS surveillance, and allocation of resources. Data availability and computational ease of our models suggest other states could similarly estimate their MSM populations.

Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research

As researchers and scholars, many of whom with extensive experience in quantitative and qualitative research in family structures and child outcomes, we write to raise serious concerns about the most recent issue of Social Science Research and the set of papers focused on parenting by lesbians and gay men. In this regard, we have particular concern about Mark Regnerus’ paper entitled ‘‘How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.’’ LGBT parenting is a highly politicized topic. While the presence of a vibrant and controversial public debate should in no way censor scholarship, it should compel the academy to hold scholarship around that topic to our most rigorous standards. We are very concerned that these standards were not upheld in this issue or with this paper, given the apparently expedited process of publication and the decision to publish commentaries on the paper by scholars who were directly involved with the study and have limited experience in LGBT parenting research. We also have serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper. In this letter, we detail the specific concerns that lead us to request that you publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal. We question the process by which this paper was submitted, reviewed, and accepted for publication. The paper was received by the journal on February 1, 2012. A revision was received on February 29, and the paper was accepted on March 12. This suggests that the peer review process and substantive revisions occurred within a period of just 5 weeks. According to the peer review policy of the Social Science Research website hosted by Elsevier, the first step of the review process is an initial manuscript evaluation by the editor. Once deemed to meet minimum criteria, at least 2 experts are secured for a peer review. The website states that, ‘‘Typically manuscripts are reviewed within 2–3 months of submission but substantially longer review times are not uncommon’’ and that ‘‘Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees upon receipt.’’ Clearly, Dr. Regnerus’ paper was returned to him very quickly, because he had time to revise the manuscript and get it back to the journal by February 29th. Further, it appears that a second substantive peer review may not have occurred as the paper was accepted just 2 weeks after the revision was submitted. The 5-week submission to acceptance length was much shorter than all of the other articles published in the July 2012 issue. The average period of review for papers published in this issue was more than a year and the median review time was more than 10 months. As we note below, there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process. We further question the selection of commenters for the Regnerus paper. While Cynthia Osborne and Paul Amato are certainly well-respected scholars, they are also both active participants in the Regnerus study. According to her curriculum vitae, Dr. Osborne is a Co-Principal Investigator of the New Family Structure Survey. Dr. Amato served as a paid consultant on the advisory group convened to provide insights into study design and methods. Perhaps more importantly, neither Osborne nor Amato have ever published work that considers LGBT family or parenting issues. A cursory examination of this body of literature would reveal a wide range of scholars who are much more qualified to evaluate the merits of this study and were neither directly involved in the study design nor compensated for that involvement. We have substantial concerns about the merits of this paper and question whether it actually uses methods and instruments that answer the research questions posed in the paper. The author claims that the purpose of the analysis is to begin to address the question, ‘‘Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?’’ (p. 755). He creates several categories of ‘‘family type’’, including ‘‘lesbian mother’’ and ‘‘gay father’’ as well as ‘‘divorced late,’’ ‘‘stepfamily,’’ and ‘‘single-parent.’’ But, as the author notes, for those respondents who indicated that a parent had a ‘‘same-sex relationship,’’ these categories were collapsed to boost sample size: