3:09-cv-02292 #461

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document461 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 5
1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
2 ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
3 dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
4 hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)*
5 nmoss@cooperkirk.com
Jesse Panuccio (DC Bar No. 981634)*
6 jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com
Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
7 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
8 Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
10 andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)*
13 braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
14 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, and
17 PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
18 * Admitted pro hac vice
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL
21 T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
22 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
Plaintiffs, PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS
23 AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
24 TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS
Plaintiff-Intervenor, RYAN KENDALL
25
v. Date: January 15, 2010
26 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
27 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G.
28 BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN KENDALL –

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
1 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

official capacity as Director of the California
2 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of
Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
3
capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information
4 & Strategic Planning for the California Department
of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
5 official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County
of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official
6 capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
7 the County of Los Angeles,
8 Defendants,
9 and
10 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.
11 KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-
SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.
12 JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
13 RENEWAL,
14 Defendant-Intervenors.
15
16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
17
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND
18 Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
19 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851
20
Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
21 jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
22 animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001
25
26
27
28

1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 15, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
3 matter may be heard, before the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Court for the
4 Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant-
5 Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez,
6 and Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a
7 Project of California Renewal, will move this Court for an order excluding Plaintiff-Intervenor City
8 and County of San Francisco’s proposed witness Ryan Kendall.
9 Defendant-Intervenors respectfully request an order excluding Ryan Kendall’s testimony
10 from this case.
11 BACKGROUND
12 In December 2009, Plaintiff-Intervenor disclosed its intent to call Mr. Kendall as a witness.
13 Doc. No. 284 at 5. At that time, Plaintiff-Intervenor indicated that Mr. Kendall would “testify
14 about how sexual orientation discrimination and ‘conversion therapy’ affected him.” Id. Prior to
15 that time, Plaintiff-Intervenor had never disclosed Mr. Kendall as an individual who might have
16 information relevant to this case. Thus, Defendant-Intervenors did not learn of Mr. Kendall’s
17 involvement in this case until December 2009, after discovery had closed.
18 Defendant-Intervenors promptly alerted Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor of their desire to
19 depose Mr. Kendall. Campbell Decl. at ¶ 1 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). In response, Plaintiffs
20 and Plaintiff-Intervenor indicated that Mr. Kendall could only be made available for deposition on
21 January 7, 2010, a mere two business days before trial. Campbell Decl. at ¶ 2.
22 At that January 7, 2010, deposition, Defendant-Intervenors learned of Mr. Kendall’s tenuous
23 connection to this case. For instance, (1) he is not a California resident and has never been a
24 California resident, see Kendall Dep. at 45 (attached hereto as Exhibit B); (2) he did not have any
25 role in opposing Proposition 8, id. at 51; (3) nor has he seen any of the “Yes on 8” campaign
26 materials, id. at 51. Despite this lack of connection to the State of California in general or
27 Proposition 8 in particular, Mr. Kendall indicates that he was contacted by the City and County of
28 San Francisco, which asked him to be a witness in this case. Id. at 30-34.
1
1 ARGUMENT
2 Mr. Kendall’s testimony should be excluded from trial; it is irrelevant, unnecessarily
3 duplicative, and not the proper subject of lay testimony. This Court’s August 24, 2009, Pretrial
4 Order required each party to “file a statement identifying all persons who the party may call as
5 witnesses and summarizing their testimony.” Doc. No. 164 at 2. That Order also states that “the
6 testimony of each witness will be limited to the matter set forth in [that] statement.” Id. Plaintiff-
7 Intervenor has identified Mr. Kendall as a witness for two purposes: (1) to testify about “how
8 sexual orientation discrimination . . . affected him”; and (2) to testify about “how . . . ‘conversion
9 therapy’ affected him.” Doc. No. 284 at 5. But as will be demonstrated herein, it is not appropriate
10 for Mr. Kendall to testify about either of these matters.
11 The first stated purpose for Mr. Kendall’s testimony—the particularized effect that sexual
12 orientation discrimination had on him—is irrelevant to this case. His testimony on that point does
13 not have a “tendency to make the existence of [a] fact that is of consequence to the determination of
14 the action more or less probable.” See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Mr. Kendall is one man from Colorado
15 whose parents forced him to undergo conversion therapy against his will when he was 14 years old.
16 See Kendall Dep. at 72, 74, 83. The particularized discrimination experienced by one person is not
17 probative to this Court’s analysis, and to the limited extent that the Court deems it to be relevant,
18 “its probative value is substantially outweighed by . . . considerations of undue delay, waste of time,
19 or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
20 Mr. Kendall’s testimony about sexual orientation discrimination will be unnecessarily
21 duplicative. See United States v. Marabelles, 724 F.2d 1374, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The exclusion
22 of . . . cumulative[] evidence is within the sound exercise of the trial court’s discretion”). Plaintiffs
23 and Plaintiff-Intervenor have already offered both lay and expert testimony about sexual orientation
24 discrimination. Each of the four plaintiffs has testified about his or her particular experience with
25 sexual orientation discrimination. And one of Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s experts,
26 Professor George Chauncey, presented several hours of testimony regarding his views on sexual
27 orientation discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is thus unnecessary and a waste of this
28 Court’s resources to elicit the particular experiences of one individual who has no direct connection
2
1 to the facts involved in case or even the State of California.
2 The second stated purpose for Mr. Kendall’s testimony—how he was affected by his
3 experience with “conversion therapy”—is similarly irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Even if
4 conversion therapy as a concept were somehow relevant to this Court’s analysis, which is highly
5 dubious, the anecdotal account of one person’s negative experience with one particularized type of
6 sexual-orientation-conversion therapy is simply not probative of any relevant fact in this case. It is
7 no more probative than if Defendant-Intervenors called a lay witness to testify regarding his or her
8 positive experience with conversion therapy.
9 To the extent that conversion therapy is at all relevant to this case, it is an issue requiring
10 expert testimony, which Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor apparently intend to offer. They have
11 identified an expert, Dr. Gregory M. Herek, who has discussed conversion therapy in his expert
12 report. See Expert Report of Gregory M. Herek at ¶ 35 (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Mr.
13 Kendall, in contrast, is not familiar with the scientific literature on the issues of sexual orientation
14 or conversion therapy, see Kendall Dep. at 56-57, 94, 126-27, and will only testify about his
15 particular experience, which, as discussed above, has no tendency “to make the existence of any
16 fact that is of consequence more or less probable.” See Fed. R. Evid. 401.
17 CONCLUSION
18 In conclusion, Defendant-Intervenors request that proposed witness Ryan Kendall be
19 excluded from testifying in this case.
20
21 Dated: January 14, 2010
22
COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC
23 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
24 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND
25 PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT
OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL
26
By: s/Charles J. Cooper
27 Charles J. Cooper
28
3
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document461-1 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 4
Exhibit A





20
22 DECLARATION OF JAMES A.
Plaintiffs, CAMPBELL IN SUPPORT OF
23 DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS
24 AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
Plaintiff-Intervenor, MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED
25 WITNESS RYAN KENDALL
v.
26 Date: January 15, 2010
Time: 8:30 a.m.
27 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN

KENDALL – CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

3
8 Defendants,
9 and

13 RENEWAL,
15
16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
17
20
25
26
27
28

1 I, James A. Campbell, attorney for Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis
2 Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign
3 Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal, have personal
4 knowledge of the facts in this declaration, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently
5 testify to these facts under oath:
6 1) Soon after receiving Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Trial Witness List, Doc. No.
7 284, Defendant-Intervenors asked Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors for an opportunity to depose
8 Ryan Kendall.
9 2) Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor told Defendant-Intervenors that the only day Mr.
10 Kendall could be made available for deposition was January 7, 2010.
11 3) Exhibit B to Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents and
12 ProtectMarriage.com’s Motion to Exclude Proposed Witness Ryan Kendall is a true and accurate
13 copy of the transcript from the January 7, 2010, Deposition of Ryan Kendall.
14 4) Exhibit C to Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents and
15 ProtectMarriage.com’s Motion to Exclude Proposed Witness Ryan Kendall is a true and accurate
16 copy of the Expert Report of Gregory M. Herek, which has been provided by Plaintiffs and
17 Plaintiff-Intervenor in this case.
18 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
19 is true and correct.
20 Executed on January 14, 2010, at San Francisco, California.
21
22
s/James A. Campbell
23 James A. Campbell
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document461-3 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 71
Exhibit C
Expert Report of Gregory M. Herek, P I D .
Perry v. Sch warzenegger

Case No. 09-cv-2292VRW
October 2,2009
I I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs as a consultant in connection with

the above-referenced litigation.
2. My background, experience, and list of publications fiom the last 10 years are
summarized in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit B to this report.
3. I am a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis. In 1983, I
received my Ph.D. in Psycblogy, with an emphasis in Personality and Social Psychology, from
the Universitg. of California at Davis. I was a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Social Psychology at Yale
University fiom 1983 to 1985. I subsequently served as a Lecturer and Visiting Assistant
Professor at Yale University, and then as an Assistant Professor at the City University of New
York Graduate Center in the graduate program in Social and Personality Psychology. I returned
to the University of California at Davis in 1989 as an Associate Research Psychologist, and was
appointed a tenured full Professor in 1999.
4. TWOprincipal foci of my original empirical research program are societal stigma
based on sexual orientation and the social psychology of heterosexuals' attitudes towaxcls
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. As reflected in my curriculum vitae (Exhibit B), I have
published more than 95 papers and chapters in scholarlyjournals and boks, most of them
related to sexual orientation, HIV/AZDS, or attitudes and prejudice. I also have edited or coedited
five h k s and two special issues of academic journals on these topics, and I have made more
than 85 presentations at professional conferences and meetings. I have received numerous
fed& and state grants for my research with combined budgets totaling more than $5 million.
5. I am a member and Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA),the
Association for Psychological Science, and several other professional organizations. On two
occasions, I have testi-fied before the U.S. Congress a b u t issues of sexual orientation on behalf
of the APA and other professional societies. I have received several professional awards and
honors, including the 1996 APA Award for Distinguished Conbibutionsto Psychology in the
Public Interest.
6. I currently serve on the editorial boards of nine professional journals and I
routinely serve as an ad hoc reviewer for others. k u g h o u t my professional career, I have
reviewed manuscripts for a large number of scientific and professional journals spanning a
variety of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, political science, sexuality studies,
gender studies, and public health. I am the Executive Editor Emeritus of Contemporary
Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, md Bisexual Psychology, a book series dedicated to scientific and
professional works on sexual orientation and related topics, which is published by the American
Psychological Association. I was a member of a peer review pane1 for the National Institute of
Mental Health from 1992 to 1995, and have served as an ad hoc reviewer for NIMH and other
funding agencies on several cccasions since completing my three-year term on that committee.
From 1995 to 2007, T served as chairperson of the Scientific Review Committee of the Wayne F.
Placek Award competition, sponsored by the American Psychological Foundation, which
annually funded empirical research in the behavioral and social sciences related to sexual
orientation. At the University of California, Davis, I regularly teach an upper-division
undergraduate cowse on sexual orientation and also have taught graduate seminars on this and
related topics. My successful service in these varied capacities has recfuired me to possess a
broad muItidisciplinary knowledge of theory and empirical research on a wide variety of topics
related to sexual orientation. Thus, I have expertise on sexual orientation that crosses academic
disciplinary boundaries and extends beyond the specific areas addressed in my own empirical
research program.
7. In the past four years, I have provided expert testimony by deposition in two
matters, V m u m v. Brien, Iowa District Court for Polk County, Case No. CV 5 965, and Curlson
Im., Superior Court of California, Los AngeIes County, Case No. BC 371958. I
v. eHamo~ry,
have not testified at a trial in any matter in the past four years.
8. For my work in this matter, I am being compensated at my standard consulting
rate of $300 per hour for preparation time and time spent writing my report, and $450 per hour
for time spent giving deposition testimony. My compensation does not depend on the outcome
of this litigation, the opinions I express, or the testimony I provide.
9. If Plaintiffs call me to testify at the trial as an expert witness in this matter, and as
discussed in greater detail below, I currently expect that my testimony will relate to the nature of
sexual orientation, how mainstream mental health professionals and behavioral scientists regard
homosexuality (is., as a nonnd variant of human sexuality), benefits conferred by marriage,
stereotypes relating to lesbians and gay men, stigma and prejudice directed at lesbians and gay
men, the harm to lesbians and gay men and their families as a consequence of being denied the
right to marry, and how the institution of domestic partnerships differs from that of marriage and
is linked with antigay stigma.
10. In preparing to write this report and to testify in this matter, I reviewed the
materials listed in Exhibits A and C . I may rely on those documents, in addition to the
documents specifically cited as supportive examples in particular sections of this report, as
additionas support of my opinions. I have also relied on my years of experience in this field, as
set out in my curriculum vitae, and on the materials listed therein.
1 1. In connection with my anticipated testimony in this action, I may use portions of

this report or the references cited herein as exhibits. In addition, I may use various documents
produoed in this case that refer or relate to the matters discussed in this report. I may also create,
or assist in the creation of, demonstrative exhibits or summaries of my dings and opinions to
assist me in test&ing.
12. I may testify as an expert regarding additional matters,including (i) by rebutting
positions that the Defendants or Defendant-Intewenorstake, including opinions of their experts
and materials they discuss or rely upon; (ii) issues that arise fiom any forthcoming Orders fiom
Chief Judge Walker, (iii) issues that arise from documents or other discovery that Defendants or
Defendant-Intervenors or other entities have not yet produced, or that were produced too late to
be fully considered before my report was due; or (iv) to respond to witness testimony that has not
yet been given.
13. 1reserve the right to supplement or amend this report based on (i) any Orders that
the Chief Judge Walker hands down; (ii) documents or other discovery that the Defendants or
Defendant-Intervenors or other entities have not yet produced; or (iii) witness testimony that has
not yet been given.
Summary of Ultimate Conclusions

14. Mainstream mental health professionals long have recognized that homosexuality
is a normal expression of human sexuality. Being gay or lesbian poses no inherent obstacle to
leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, or to functioning well in society. Such functioning
includes the capacity to form healthy and mutually satisfying intimate relationships,just as
heterosexual persons do. The factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual,
homosexual, or bisexual are not currently well understood. However, most lesbian and gay adults
report that they do not experience their sexual orientation as a choice, and sexual orientation is
highly resistant to change through psychotherapy or religious interventions. Marriage confers a
variety of psychological, social, and health benefits to spouses. By prohibiting same-sex couples
fiom marrying, California law effectively denies gay and lesbian persons access to the institution
of marriage. This denial is an instance of structural stigma. Structural stigma gives rise to
prejudicial attitudes and stigmatizing actions against the m e r n h of stigmatized groups and thus
has negative consequences for the entire gay, lesbian, and bisexual population. Experiencing
stigma is associated with heightened psychological distress among lesbians and gay men. To the
extent that stigma prevents heterosexuals from establishing personal relationships with lesbians
and gay men, it further reinforces antigay prejudice among heterosexuals.
IL The Nature of Scientific Evidence

15. In this report, I summarize the current state of scientific and professional
knowledge about several issues relevant to sexual orientation and marriage. At the outset, I wish
to note three important, interrelated points concerning the nature of scientific evidence in the
social and behavioral sciences.
16. First, scientific howledge is cumulative. Scientists continually try to replicate
their own findings and those of their colleagues by collecting new data from new samples using a
variety of methods. Conclusions that are supported by multiple studies employing different
methods with different samples are typically accorded greater weight than conclusions derived
from a singie study.
17. Second, scientific research cannot prove a negative. We cannot conclusively

demonstrate that a particular phenomenon never occurs or that two variables are never related to
each other. Over time, however, as the data accumulated fiom multiple independent studies fail
to establish the exi5tence of a phenomenon or fail to show a relationship between two variables,
we become increasingly convinced that,in fact, the phenomenon does not exist or the variables
are unrelated. At that point, if a researcher wishes to argue that the phenomenon exists or that the
variables are correlated, the burden of proof is on that researcher to provide empirical support for
her or his assertions.
1 . Third,d l scientific studies can be constructiwIy criticized because no empirical
study is perfect in its design and execution. Indeed, scientists are trained to continually critique
their own research and that of their colleagues in order to advance scientific knowledge. Thus,
when a scientist identifies limitations or qualifications to a published study's findings (whether
the scientist's own research or that of a colleague), or when she or he notes areas in which
additional research is needed, this should not itself be interpreted as a dismissal or discounting of
the research.
19. In preparing this declaration, I have relied on the best empirical research
available, focusing as much as possible on general patterns rather than my single study.
Whenever possible, I have relied on original empirical studies and litmature reviews published in
highly respected peer-reviewed journals in the behavioral and social sciences. Not every
published paper meets this standard because academicjournals differ wideIy in their publication
criteria and the rigor of their peer review. In some cases, I have used material published in
academic books or technical reports released by individual scholars or research organizations,

recognizing that such work typically is not subjected to the same rigorous peer-review standards
as journal articles. I have relied on such sources only when, in my judgment, they meet the
criteria of employing rigorous methods,having credible researchers as authors, and accurately
reflecting professional opinion about the current state of knowledge. Tn assessing the scientific
literature, I have not relied upon studies merely because they support particular conclusions, nor
have I excluded credible studies from consideration merely because they contradict particular
conclusions.
20. Although this report, in my judgment, accurately summarizes the scientific
literature an the topics it addresses, I have not attempted to provide an exhaustive review of that
literature. Rather, I cite representative sources that illustrate or elaborate on my main points or
provide additional evidence for the conclusions I have reached. The full bibliographic citations
for the sources 1cite in this report are listed in Exhibit A.
KII. Sexual Orientalion
A. The Nature of Sexual Orientation and Its Inherent Link to Intimate

Relationship
2 1. As commonly used, sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of or
disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic desires for and attractions to men,
women, or both sexes. The tern is also used to refer to an individual's sense of personal and
social identity based on those desires and attractions, behaviors expressing them, and
membership in a community of others who share them.Although sexual orientation ranges along
a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusiveIy homosexual, it is usually discussed in
terms of three categories: heterosexual (having attraction primarily or exclusively to members of
the other sex), hmosemal (having attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one's own
sex), and bisexml (having a significant degree of attraction to both men and women).l
22. Most social and behavioral research has assessed sexual orientation in terms of
attraction, behavior, or identity, or some combination of these constructs. Which of these
I For elaboration on the definition of sexual orientation, see the entries I wrote on
"Homosexuality" for The Encyclopedia of Psychology (Herek, 2000) and The Corsini
Eruyclopedia of Psychology and Behioral Science (Herek, 200 1). See also Gonsiorek
& Weinrich, 1991. In this report, I focus specifically on persons with a homosexual
orientation - gay men and lesbians - and on how prohibiting marriage rights for same-sex
coupks affects that group and their children. It should be noted that some research I cite
(for example, some of the research on stigma discussed below) is appIicable to bisexual
as well as homosexual persons. Moreover, many bisexual persons are involved in
committed same-sex relationships and, to the extent that they are, many statements in this
report apply with equal force to them.
operational definitions is most appropriate for a particular study depends on the research goals.
For example, studies of sexually-transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men would
appropriately focus on sexual behavior. By contrast, for research on experiences stemming from
one's status as an openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual individual, sexual orientation would be best
operationalized in terms of identity.
23. Although social scientists conceive of sexual orientation as a complex, multi-
faceted phenomenon and operationalize it in a variety of ways,most adults in the United States
are able to report their own sexual orientation to researchers. When asked one or more questions
about their sexual orientation, nearly all participants in national survey studies are able to
provide a resp~nse.~
Among the m a i l percentage of individuals who do not report their sexual
orientation in response to a survey question, some may be unsure about their orientation or may
be uncomfortable labeling it, but many are probably motivated by concerns about their personal
privacy or, for those who are not heterosexual, fear of stigma.
24. Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and sexuality,
including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated
with being male or female), gender identidy (the psychological sense of being male or female),
and gender role orientation (the extent to which one conforms to cultural norms defining
feminine and masculine behavior; also referred to as sex role orientation).
25. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual,
like biological sex, gender identity, race, or age. Although this perspective is accurate insofar as
it goes, it is incomplete because sexual orientation is always defined in relational terms and
necessarily involves relationships with other individuals. Sexual acts and romantic attractions are
characterized as homosexual or heterosexual according to the biological sex of the individuals
involved in them, relative to each other. Indeed, it is by acting with another person - or
expressing a desire to act - that individuals express their heterosexuality, homosexuality, or
2 Some heterosexual survey respondents are unfamiliar with terms such as "heterosexual"
and "homosexual" but provide responses (e.g., "normal," straight") that indicate they
identify as heterosexual (e-g., Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994).
bisexuality. This includes sexual behaviors as well as actions that simply express affection, such
as holding hands with or kissing another person.
26. Thus, sexuaI orientation is integrally linked to the intimate personal relationships
that human beings fonn with others to meet their deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and
intimacy. These bonds encompass not only sexual behavior, but also feelings of affection
between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment.
Consequently, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic that can be defined in
isolation. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is
Iikely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an
essential component of personal identity.
. Homosexuality Is a Norma! Expression of Human Sexuality.

27. Mainstream mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that
homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexudity; that being gay or lesbian3 bears no
inherent relation to a person's ability to perform, contribute to, or participate in society; that
being gay or lesbian poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life;
and that the vast majority of gay and Iesbian people function we11 in society and in their
interpersonal relationships. Such functioning includes the capacity to form a healthy and
mutually satisfying intimate relationship with another person of the same sex and to raise healthy
and weH-adjusted children.
28. Empirical research conducted since the 1950s consistently has failed to provide an
empirical or scientific basis for the once common view of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
While the American Psychiatric Association initially classified homosexuality as a disorder in
1952 when it published its first Diagnostic m d Statistical Mmual of Mental Disorders @SM ),4
3 In this report, I use "gay" to refer collectively to men and women whose social identity is
based on their homosexual orientation, that is, their sexual, affectional, or romantic
attraction primarily to members of their own sex. I use "gay man" to refer to men in this
group, and 'lesbian" to refer to women in this group. In some instances, I use the phrase
"gay and lesbian" to clarify that I am referring to both gay women and men.
American Psychiatric Association, 1952.
that classification was subjected almost immediately to critical scrutiny in research funded by the
National Institute of Mental ~eaIth.5As empirical research results accumulated, professionals in
medicine, mental health, and the behavioraI and social sciences reached the conclusion that the
classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder was in error. They recognized that it
reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social nnms as we11 as clinical
impressions fiom unrepresentative samples of patients seeking therapy and of individuals whose
conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.
29. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality fiom the DSM in
1973, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability,
or general social or vocational capabilities." The American Psychological Association adopted
the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of
mental illness that had long been associated with homosexual orientation.6
30. Like heterosexuals, lesbians and gay men benefit psychologically from being able
to share their lives with and receive support from their family, friends, and other people who are
important to them. In many studies, for example, Iesbians and gay men have been found to
manifest better mental health to the extent that they hold positive feelings about their own sexual
5 In what is now considered a classic study ancl one of the first methodologically rigorous
examinations of the mental health status of homosexuaiity, Dr. Evelyn Hooker
administered a battery of widely used psychologicaI tests to groups of homosexual and
heterosexual males who were matched for age, IQ, and education. The men were
recruited from nonclinical settings; none of the men was in therapy at the time of the
study. The heterosexual and homosexual groups did not differ significantly in their
overall psychological adjustment, as rated by independent experts who were unaware of
each man's sexual orientation. Hooker concluded fiom her data that homosexuality is not
inherently associated with psychopathoiogy and that "homosexuality as a clinical entity
does not exist" (Hooker, 1957, p. 30). Hooker's findings were subsequently replicated
and amplified by numerous studies using a variety of research techniques which similarly
concluded that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology or social
maladjustment (see, e.g., Gonsiorek, 1991).
6 The text of the 1975 American Psychological Association resolution can be found at
~p:l/www.apa.or~pi/1~bcI'p01icv/discrna.html and in Conger, 1975. The
Psychological Association's other resolutions addressing issues related to sexual
orientation are posted at http://www.apa.or~viII~bc/polic\r'/~~horne.htn~l.
The Psychiatric
Association's official positions on those issues are posted at
htt~:l/~'~~w.healthvminds.or~More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.asps.
orientation, have developed a positive sense of personal identity based on it, and have integrated
it into their lives by disclosing it to others (such disclosure is commonly referred to as "coming
out of the closet" or simply "coming out'7.7 By contrast, lesbians and gay men who feel
compelled to conceal their sexual orientation tend to report more frequent mental health concerns
than their openly gay counterparts* and are also at risk for physical health problems.9
3 1. Moreover, like heterosexuals, gay people can be adversely affected by high levels
of stress. The link between experiencing stress and manifesting symptoms of psychological or
physicaI illness is well estEibIished in human beings and other species. To the extent that the
portion of the population with a homosexual orientation is subjected to additional stress beyond
what is normally experienced by the heterosexual population, it may, as a group, manifest
somewhat higher levels of illness or psychological distress.10 Much of the difference in levels of
stress experienced by the heterosexual population and the homosexual population is attributable
to the societal stigma directed at the 1atter.ll As Prof. Iian Meyer noted after reviewing the
relevant scientific literature, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals "are exposed to excess stress
due to their minority position and . . .this stress causes an excess in mental disorders."l2 In
experiencing suck excess sbess, the gay and lesbian population is comparable to other minority
groups that face unique stressors due to prejudice and discrimination based on their minority
status.13 Given the unique social stressors to which they are subjected, the noteworthy fact is that
Herek & Garnets, 2007; Padlankis, 2007.

Meyer, 2003; Herek, 1996.
Cole, 2006; Strachan, Bennett, Russo, & Roy-Byme, 2007.

10 Consistent with this observation, several studies suggest that, compared to the
heterosexual population, a somewhat larger proportion of the homosexual and bisexual
population may manifest certain psychologicaI symptoms (Herek & Garnets, 2007).
11 I define the construct of stigma and discuss it at length below.
"'eyer, 2003; see aIso Herek & Garnets, 2007.
13 Meyer, 2003, pp. 675-76,690. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexuaI people face other
stressors. For example, because the AIDS epidemic has had a disproportionate impact on
the gay male community in the United States, many gay and bisexual men have
Footnote continued on next page]
the vast majority of gay men and lesbians effectively cope with these challenges and lead happy,
healthy and well-adjusted lives.
C. The Origins and Enduring Nature of Sexual Orientation.

32. The factors that cause an individual to become heterosexuaI, homosexual, or
bisexual are not currently well understood. Widely differing sources for adult sexual orientation
have been proposed but no single theory enjoys unequivocal empirical support. Given the current
lack of definitive knowledge about why some individuals develop a heterosexual orientation and
others become homosexual, most social and behavioral scientists regard sexual orientation as
being shaped by a complex interaction of biological, psychological, and social forces. They often
differ, however, on the relative importance they attach to each.
33. Irrespective of the origins of sexual orientation, I have found in my own research
that most gay men and lesbians report experiencing either no choice or very little choice in theb
sexual orientation. In a survey conducted during the 1990s with a nonprobability ~ a m p l e lof
.~
Footnote continued from previous page]

experienced the loss of a life partner, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual peopIe alike have
experienced extensive losses in their personal and social networks resulting fiorn the
death of close friends and acquaintances; bereavement related to multiple losses is linked
to higher levels of depressive symptoms (see Folkman, Chesney, Collette, Boccellari, &
Cooke, 1996; Martin, 1988).
"esearchers distinguish between probability and nonprobability samples. In a pro bubilify
sample, all members of the population under study have some calculable chance of being
included in the sample, and individual sample members are chosen through a process that
includes some element of randomization. Probability samples are sometimes referred to
colloquially as representative samples, reflecting the fact that statistical procedures can
be applied to them to estimate their level of sampling error. In nonprobability samples, by
contrast, some members of the population have no chance of being included in sample.
For example, if a study relies solely on data from volunteers who respond to a newspaper
advertisement, it inevitably excludes members of the population who didn't see the ad;
this would be a nonprobability sample. To confidently describe the prevalence or
frequency with which a phenomenon occurs in the population at large, it is necessary to
collect data from a probability sample. By contrast, simply to document that a
phenomenon ever occurs, case studies and nonprobability samples are often adequate.
For comparisons of different populations, probability samples drawn from each group are
desirable but not necessary and are often not feasible. Hence, researchers ofkn rely on
nonprobability samples that have been matched on reIevant characteristics (e.g.,
educationa1level, age, income). Some groups are sufficiently few in number - relative to
the entire population - that locating them with probability sampling methods is extremely
expensive or practically impossible. In the latter cases, the use of nonprobability samples
is often appropriate.
more than 2,200 gay, lesbian, and bisexual adu1t.s in the greater Sacramento area, I found that
87% of the gay men and 70% of the lesbians reported that they experienced 'ho choice at all" or
"very little choice" about their sexual orientation.15 More recently, in a survey conducted with a
national probability sample of more than 650 self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, I
found that 88% of the gay men reported hat they experiencsd "no choice at all" about king gay,
and another 7% reported experiencing "a small amount of choice." OnIy 5% said they
experienced "a fair amount" or "a great deal" of choice. Among lesbians, 68% reported that they
experienced no choice, and another 15% reported experiencing a small amount of choice; only
16%experienced a fair amount or a great deal of choice.16

34. This finding is consistent with research showing that most people report having
sexual attractions to and experiences with the members of only one sex. In the Kinsey studies of
the 1940s and 1950s, for example, substantial numbers of respondents reported they had
experienced sexual attraction to the members of only one sex, that is, they experienced either
heterosexual or homosexual attractions, but not both.37 More recent studies have reported similar
findings.18 I am not aware of empirical studies in which heterosexual men and women were
directly asked whether or not they chose to ke heterosexua1. If such a study were to be
conducted, however, 1 believe it is likely that most heterosexuals would report that they do not
experience their heterosexuality as a choice.
15 Herek, Gillis, & Cogm, 2009.

l6 Herek, Norton, Allen, & Sims, 2009.
l7 In interviews with a nonprobability sample of more than 10,000 adults, A l k d Kinsey
and his colleagues categorized respondents according to the extent to which their sexual
behaviors and emotional attractions and fantasies after the onset of adolescence were
heterosexual or homosexual (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy,
Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). The extent to which the percentages reported by Kinsey and
his colleagues can be generalized to the current U.S. population has been a topic of
controversy (e-g., Michaels, 1996). However, regardless of whether or not Kinsey's
findings accurately describe the current distribution o f heterosexuals, homosexuals, and
bisexuals in the general population, they document the existence of a sizable number of
individuab whose history of sexual attractions and behaviors is exc1usively or almost
entirely to one sex.
3 5. Sexual orientation is highly resistant to change through psychotherapy or religious

interventions. Interventions aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation have not been
demonstrated by empirical research to be effective or safe. Moreover, because homosexuality is
a normal variant of human sexuality, the major mental h d t R professional organizations do not
encourage individuals to try ta change their sexual orientation fiom homosexual to heterosexual.
Indeed, such interventions are ethically suspect because they can be harmful to the psychological
well-being of those who attempt them; clinical observations and self-reports indicate that many
individuals who unsuccessfulIy attempt to change their sexual orientation experience
considerable psychological distress.19
19 Although some psychotherapists and religious counselors have reported changing their
clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, empirical data are lacking to
demonstrate that these interventions are either effective ox safe. Most of the published
empirical research that has claimed to demonstrate the efficacy of techniques intended to
change a person's sexual orientation can be criticized on methodological grounds.In
response to public debates about these techniques, the American Psychological
Association created a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual
Orientation which reviewed the relevant research literature. The Task Force reported that
it found "serious methodological problems in this area of research, such that only a few
studies met the minimal standardsfor evaluating whether psychological treatments, such
as efforts to change sexual orientation, are effective" (American Psychological
Assmiation, 20Q9a,p. 2). Based on its review of the studies that met these standards, the
Task Force concluded that
"enduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon. The

participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex
amactions following SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] and did not
report significant change to other-sex ataactisns that could be empirically
validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all
sexual stimuli. CampelIing evidence of decreased same-sex sexual
behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was
rare. Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in
laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of
scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will
be able to reduce same-sexattractions or increase other-sex sexual
attractions though SOCE" @p. 2-31.
In addition, the Task Force found evidence to indicate that some individuals experienced
harm or believed they had been harmed by these interventions. The Task Force report
provides a detailed discussion of this topic and an extensive review of relevant research.
It is available at: http:l/www.apa.or~pilI~bc/publication~he~veutic-res~onse.pdf.
36. For these reasons, no major mental health professional organization has
sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy
statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change
sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological
Association, American Counseling Association, and National Association of Social Workers. In
addition, reflecting the fact that adolescents are often subjected to such treatments, the American
Academy of Pediatrics has adopted a policy statement advising that therapy directed specifically
at attempting to change an adolescent's sexual orientation is contraindicated and unlikely to
result in change.20
IV. Marriage Confers Benefits.

37. The belief that being married bestows benefits on wedded couples is widespread
and the positive consequences of being married are well documented. Married men and women
who are satisfied with their relationships generally experience better physical and mental health
than their unmarried counterpart^.^' This outcome does not resuIt simply from being in an
intimate relationship, as indicated by the fact that otherwise comparable heterosexuals who are in
cohabiting couples generally do not manifest the same levels of health and well-being as manied
2o In response to the 2009 report of its Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to
Sexual Orientation, the APA passed a resolution that stated, in part, '?he American
Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use
of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and '?he American
Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual
orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to
change sexual orientation" (American Psychological Association, 2009b). See also the
relevant policy statements by the American Psychiatric Association, the NationaI
Association of Social Workers, and the American Counseling Association. These policy
statements are compiled in a publication titled Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation
and Youth:A Primer for Principals, Educafors,and School Personnel, which is available
on the American Psychological Association's Web site:
http://www.apa.or~/~i/l~bclpublicationsliustthefacts.pdf
2I Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Gove, Style, & Hughes, 1990; Johnson, Backlund,
Sorlie, 62 Loveless, 2000; Ross, Mirowsky, & Goldsteen, 1990; Simon, 2002; Stack &
Eshleman, 1998
individuals.~Nor does it appear to be simply a product of self-selection by healthy and happy

individuals into marital relationships.23 Of course, marriage is not a panacea. Empirical data and
common experience show that it is a better option for some than for others.24 People who are
unhappy with their marriages often manifest lower levels of well-being than their unmarried
counterparts, and experiencing marital discord and dissatishction is often associated with
negative health effects.25 Nevertheless, happily married coupIes are generally better off than the
unmarried.
38. The positive health effects of marriage result, in part, fiom the tangible resources
and protections that society accords to spouses.26 But marriage also provides other benefits and
protections. Compared with the unmarried, for example, married adults tend to receive more
social support fiom other people, especially fiom their parents, and such support contributes to
individual well-being.27Indeed, social support and integration are central to the institution of
marriage: Marital relationships differ from nomarital intimate relationships, in part, by
requiring a lifelong commitment that is publicly affirmed, typically in the presence of family
members, friends, and civil or religious authorities. This public aspect of marriage can be
22 Brown, 2000; Nock, 1995; Stack & Eshleman, 1998; but see Ross, 1995
'3 Gove et al., 1990; but see Huston & Melz, 2004
24 e.g., Huston & Melz, 2004
25 Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983;Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 200 1; WilIiams, 2003
26 For example, federal and state statutes accord married partners many fmancial benefits -
including those deriving fiom tax laws, employee benefits, death benefits, and
entitlement programs -which provide the couple with greater economic and financial
security than unmarried individuals. Such security is an important predictor of mental, and
physical health. In addition, married couples enjoy special rights and privileges that
buffer them against the gsychological stress associated with extremely traumatic life
events, such as h e death or incapacitation of a partner. Married couples' legd status abo
enables them to exercise greater control over their lives when stressful situations arise
and to avoid some types of stressful situations entirely. These include, for example, being
compelled to testify against one's spouse in court, having a noncitizen spouse deported,
and having one's relationship or joint parental status challenged outside one's home state
(see generally Herek, 2006).
27 Cooney & Uhlenberg, 1992; Nwk, 1995; Sprecher, 1988; Umberson, 1992.
understood as increasing each relationship partner's sense of security that the relationship will
endure.28
39. Moreover, by creating barriers and constraints on dissolving the relationship,
marriage can be a source of relationship stability and cornmitment.29 Social scientists have long
recognized that marital commitment is a function not only of aaractive forces (i.e., features of
the partner or the relationship that are rewarding) but also of external forces that serve as
barriers or constraints on dissolving the relationship. Barriers to terminating a marriage include
feelings of obligation to one's spouse, children, and other family members; moral and religious
vaIues about divorce; legal restrictions; financial concerns; and the expected disapproval of
friends and the community.30 In the absence of adequate rewards, the existence of barriers alone
is not sufficient to sustain a marriage in the long term. Not surprisingly, perceiving one's
intimate relationship primarily in terns of rewards, rather than barriers to dissolution, is likely to
be associated with greater reIationship satisfaction.31 Nonetheless, the presence of barriers may
increase parhers' motivation to seek solutions for their problems when possible, rather than
prematurely dissolving a potentially salvageable relationship. Indeed, the perceived presence of
barriers is negatively correlated with divorce, suggesting that barriers contribute to staying
together for at least some couples in some circumstances.32
40. Marriage also offers other, less tangible benefits. In the 19" century, the
sociologist EmiIe Durkheim observed that marriage helps to protect the individual from the
negative effects of anomie. Expanding on this notion, 20th-century sociologists characterized
marriage as "a social arrangement that creates for the individual the sort of order in which he can
28 Cherlin, 2000,2004.
29 Adams & Jones, 1997; CherIin, 2004; Nock, 1995.
3O See Levinger, 1965; Adams & Jones, 1997.
3' See,e.g.,Previti&Amato,2003.
32 See Beaton & Albrecht, 1991;White & Booth, 1991.
experience his life as making sense"33 and suggested that "in our society the role that most
frequently provides a strong positive sense of identity, self-worth, and mastery is marriage."31
Although it is difficult to quantify how the meaning of life changes for individuals once they
marry, marriage clearly has distinct benefits that extend beyond the material necessities of life.35
V. California Law Denies Gay Men, and Lesbians Access to the Institution of Marriage.
41. The effect of CaIifornia law is to deny gay men and lesbians access to the
institution of marriage, thus depriving them of its psychological, social, and practical benefits. It
also denies such access to bisexual persons who are in a loving, committed relationship with a
person of the same sex.
A. Marrying a Person of the Other Sex Is Not a Realistic Option for Gay Men
and Lesbians.
42. As explained above, a person's sexual orientation defines the universe of persons
with whom one is likely to fmd the satisfying and fulfilling relationships that, for many
individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity. For individuaIs who are
excIusively heterosexual, such relationships are with a person of the other sex. For individuals
who are exclusively lesbian or gay, such relationships are with a person of the same sex.36 Thus,
manying a person of the other sex is not a realistic option for a gay or lesbian person, any more
than rnanying a person of the same sex is a viable option for a heterosexual man or woman.
43. This is not to say that gay men and lesbians never marry a person of the other sex.
In the fairly recent past, before the emergence of visible gay communities in the United States,
34 Gove et al., 1990, p. 16; see also Cherlin, 2004.

35 e. g., Burton, 1998.
36 For example, in the previously-cited national survey that I conducted with a probability
sample of more than 650 lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, approximately 76% of
lesbians and 40% of gay men were currently in a committed reIationship, the vast
majority of them cohabiting. Only two of these respondents were in a heterosexual
relationship, both of them married to a person of the other sex (Herek et al., 2009).
many gay women and men married heterosexually for a variety of reasons, including social and
family pressures, a desire to avoid stigma, and a perception that such marriages were the only
available route to having children. Sometimes individuals have recognized their homosexuality
or bisexuality only after they married a person of the other sex.37 In these situations, the
heterosexually married gay, lesbian, or bisexual individual's eventual recognition or disclosure
of his or her sexuality has typically been highly disruptive for the entire family. Not all such
marriages have ended in divorce or separation, but many have.38 Given these negative
consequences, pressuring gay men and lesbians to marry a person of the other sex is not in the
best interests of the individuals involved or of society.
13. Domestic Partnership Does Not Confer the Same Benefits as Marriage.
44. It might be argued that arrangements such as domestic partnerships, which grant
nearly all of the rights and privileges now conferred through civil marriage without actually
designating a couple as "married," can adequately provide California same-sex couples with the
same protections and benefits that married couples enjoy. However, this argument is probIernatic
on several grounds.
45. First, although same-sex relationships are held together by many of the same
attracting forces as those of heterosexual couples, without marriage they do not enjoy the same
institutionalized barriers to relationship dissolution.39 California same-sex couples seeking to

dissolve a domestic partnership most likely do not experience many of the same social barriers to
37 e.g., Higgins, 2006. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining probability samples that include
large numbers of gay men and lesbians, reIiabIe estimates of the proportion of gay and
lesbian adults who have been heterosexually married have not been avai1abIe. However, a
recently published analysis of responses to a 2003 survey of California adults found that
approximately 9% of gay men and 25% of lesbians 18-59 years of age reported having
ever been married, most of them presumably to a person of the other sex (Carpenter &
Gates, 2008, Table 3).
38 e.g., Bozett, 1982.

39 One study that directly compared same-sex cohabiting couples with heterosexual married
couples on this factor found that the gay male and lesbian couples experienced
significantly fewer institutiona1barriers to ending their relationship compared to the
heterosexual couples (Kurdek, 1998).
relationship dissolution that are faced by married heterosexual couples. For example, although
data are lacking in this area, it appears that social norms do not discourage the dissolution of a
domestic partnership in the same way that they discourage marital divorce. This difference was
dramatically illustrated in 2004, when a new law expanded the benefits and obligations accorded
to California's domestic parhers. That year, the California Secretary of State sent letters to
registered domestic partners, warning them to consider the possible desirability of legally
dissolving their partnership before the statute took effect40 According to data compiled by
UCLA researchers, dissolutions of domestic pamerships peaked in 2004, spiking in December
just before the new Iaw took effect." It is difficult to imagine a parallel situation in which the
State would encourage married couples to consider obtaining a divorce, suggesting that
California domestic partnerships are not viewed as equivalent to marriage in terms of barriers to
their dissolution.
46. Further evidence that significant portions of the U.S. and California populations
do not regard domestic partnerships and civil unions to fie equivalent to marriage is available
from public opinion polls showing that a substantial proportion of the U.S. population supports
Similar
civil unions or domestic partnerships but opposes marriage for same-sex co~ples.?~
patterns have been documented in California.43
47. Second, whereas marriage as a social institution has a profound effect on the lives
of those who inhabit it, the extent to which civil unions and domestic partnerships have
comparable effects is unclear. Forming a domestic partnership or civil union may increase a
4 Gates, Badgett, & Ho, 2008.

42 A 2009 national survey conducted by the Pew Center, for example, found that 54% of
respondents opposed same-sex marriage whereas 53% favored civil unions (Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press, 2009).
43 In a 2009 Field Poll, for example, 34% of California adults said gay and lesbian couples
should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships but not Iegally marry,
whereas 45% said they should be allowed to marry; another J 9% believed there should be
no legal recognition of gay or lesbian couples' relationships (DiCamillo & Field, 2009).
same-sex couple's feelings of love and c~mrnitment,?~

but it seems unlikely that those
institutions will be found to confer the same social and psychological benefits as marriage. Data
are not currentIy available to directly test this hypothesis. Among heterosexuals, however,
cohabiting couples do not derive the same heaIth advantages from their relationships as married
couples.45 And it is noteworthy that in jurisdictions where heterosexuals are legally able to form
domestic partnerships, relatively few different-sex coupies exercise this 0~tion.46Indeed, the
intense level of public debate and controversy surrounding the question of whether marriage
rights should be granted to same-sex couples is itself an indication of the special status accorded
to marriage as a social institution and the widespread belief that it confers unique benefits.
48. The transformative power of marriage and the special meaning associated with
marital status - compared to that associated with domestic partner status - is further attested to
by the widespread desire among lesbians, gay men,and bisexuals to marry a same-sex partner.
Thousands of same-sex couples - including many who were already registered as domestic
parhers - married in California during the months in 2008 when marriage was a legal option for
them, and many same-sex couples have traveled long distances across state and national borders
to legally marry.47 Survey data show that large numbers of lesbian, gay, and bisexud Americans
want to marry. In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, for
example, 74%of the sample responded affirmatively to the question, "If you could get legally
married to someone of the same sex, would you like to do that someday or not?'48 In my own
44 Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2005.

45 See Note 22.
47 For example, many U.S. lesbian and gay couples traveled to Canada to marry when that
country legalized mamiage for same-sex couples (Marech, 2004a), and many traveled
across state borders to marry in San Francisco in 2004 (Herel, Marech, & Lelchuk, 2004)
and in Connecticut and Iowa in 2009 (Foderaro, 2009; Olson, 2009).
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001, p. 3 1; this 2000 survey was conducted by the Kaiser
Family Foundation with a probability sample of 405 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
from 15 major U. S. metropolitan areas. It has not been published in a peer-reviewed
journal but is available on the Kaiser Family Foundation web site:
Footnote continued on next page]
previousIy-cited national survey, more than 75% of the gay men and more than 85% of the
lesbians who were currently in a relationship stated that, if marriage were legally available in
their state, they would be very likely, fairly likely, or somewhat likely to many their current
(same-sex) partner. Among the respondents not currently in a relationship, only 23% of the gay
men and 8% of the lesbians expressed no desire to marry sorneday.49
49. Additional evidence for the transfornative power of marriage is provided by a
2009 study conducted with a nonprobability sample of more than 500 Massachusetts residents
who married a same-sexpartner in that state. This survey, sponsored by the Massachusetts
Department of Fublic Health, included questions about the perceived effects of marrying. About
half (49%) of the respondents cited "it increased our commitment to each other" as one of the
most important ways in which being married had changed them or their relationship. In a follow-
up question later in the survey, nearly three-fourths of the respondents (72%) agreed that "I feel
more committed to my pmer'" as a result of being married.50
VI. Denying Gay Men and Lesbians Access to the Institution of Mamage Stigmatizes
Them.
50. Same-sex couples who choose marriage can be reasonably expected to benefit
fiom it, like their heterosexual counterparts. It is my understanding that Dr.Peplau, in her expert
report for this case, has explained that same-sex committed relationships do not differ from
heterosexual committed relationships in their essential emotional qualities and their capacity for
long-term commitment. It is also my understanding that Dr. Lamb, in his expert report, has
explained that they also do not differ in the context they provide for rearing healthy and well-
Footnote continued fiom previous mgel
4 Herek et al., 2009.

58 Ramos, Goldberg, & Badgett, 2009. This study has not been published in a peer-reviewed
journal, but is available on the website ofthe UCLA Williams Institute:
h~:llwww.iaw.ucIa.eddwilliamsinstitutdpubEications/
adjusted children. To the extent that the State of California's concurrence with these conclusions
is evidenced in its domestic partnership and adoption statutes, the sole basis for according same-
sex relationships a different legal status than heterosexual relationships is ultimately the fact that
the relationship is homosexual rather than heterosexual.51

5 1. Denying same-sex couples the status of marriage - even if they receive virtually
all other rights and privileges legally conferred by marriage - arguably devalues and
delegitimizes their relationships. It conveys a societal,judgment that committed intimate
relationships with people of the same sex are inferior to heterosexual relationships, and that the
participants in a same-sex relationship are less deserving of society's recognition than
heterosexual couples. It perpetuates power differentials whereby heterosexuals have greater
access than nonheterosexuals to the many resources and benefits bestowed by the institution of
marriage. These elements are the crux of stigma.
52. Stigma refers to an enduring condition, status, or attribute that is negatively
valued by society, that fundamentally defines a person's social identity, and that consequently
disadvantages and disempowers those who have it.52 Social scientists have long recognized that
stigma is not inherent in a particular trait or membership in a particular group; rather, society
collectively identifies particular characteristics and groups, and assigns negative meaning and
value to some of them, thereby "constructing" stigma. Thus, a classic work in this area
51 In 2004, based on its review of the relevant scientific research concerning marriage and
same-sex relationships, the American PsychoIogical Association passed a Resolution on
Sexual Orientation arzd Marriage, in which it resolved 'That the APA believes that it is
unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to
a11 its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges" and that the "APA encourages
psychologists to act to eliminate a11 discrimination against same-sex couples in their
practice, research, education and training" (American Psycho~ogica~ Association, 2004).
Similarly, in 2005, the American Psychiatric Association adopted a Support of Legal
Recognirion of Same-Sex Civil Marriage position statement, resolving that "In tbe interest
of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association
supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with a11 rights, benefits, and
responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights,
benefits, and responsibilities" (American Psychiatric Association, 2005).
52 See, e.g., Goman, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001.
characterized stigma as "an undesired differentness."S3 Exactly which differences are important,
and which ones are designated as undesirable, is socially constructed and can change over time
as social norms and mores change.
53. Social psychological research indicates that "differenhess," to the extent that it
creates perceptions of ingroups and outgoups, is associated with biased perceptions a d
differential treatment of individuals according to whether they are considered "us" or c ~ m . "
People tend to hold positive feelings and display favoritism toward members of their own group,
even in situations when group membership is based on completely arbitrary criteria, such as the
flip of a c0in.5~To the extent that State policies diffexentiate majority and minority groups and
accord them differing statuses, they highlight the perceived "differentness" of the minority and
thereby promote and perpetuate stigma.
A. Homosexuality Remains Stigmatized, and this Stigma Has Negative

Conseqnenca.
54. HomosexuaIity remains stigmatized today in the United States and in California:
Significant portions of the heterosexual public harbor negative feelings and hostile attitudes
toward sexual minorities.55 Such stigma can be observed both in the institutions of society and
among its individual members. In the former, stigmaderived differentials in status and power are
legitimated and perpetuated in the form of stpuchrral stigma. As a product of sociopolitical
forces, structural stigma 'kepresents the policies of private and governmental institutions that
resbict the opportunities of stigmatized groups."56
55. By legitimating and reinforcing the "desired differentness" of sexual minorities

and by according them inferior status relative to heterosexuals, structural stigma gives rise to
prejudiciaI attitudes and individual acts against hem, including ostracism, harassment,
53 Goffman,1963,p.5.
54 See, e-g., Devine, 1995; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993.
55 e.g., Herek, 2002; Herek & Capitanio, 1999; Schafer & Shaw, 2009.
j6 Corrigan et al, 2005; see generally Link & Phelan, 2001.
discrimination, and violence. Large numbers of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people experience
such acts of stigma because of their sexual orientation. For example, in my national survey of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, 2 1% of the respondents reported having been the target of a
physical assault or property crime because of their sexual orientation since age 18. Gay men
were the most likely to report they had been the targets of such crimes; 38% had experienced an
assault or property crime because of their sexual orientation>7 In the same survey, I found that
18% of gay men and 16% of lesbians reported they had experienced discrimination in housing or
employment because of their sexual orientation. Enactments of stigma are not only experienced
by lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults; victimization of adolescents is also common. For example,
findings from the Cdifornia Healthy Kids Survey indicate that harassment and bullying based on
a child's actual or perceived sexual orientation is widespread in California middle and high
schools.58
56. Research indicates that experiencing stigma and discrimination is associated with
heightened psychological distress - both among gay and lesbian adults59 and adolescents.60
Being the target of extreme enactments of stigma, such as an mtigay criminal assault, is
accompanied by greater psychological distress than is experiencing a similar crime not based on
one's sexual orientation.G1Fear of being a target for stigma makes some gay and Iesbian persons
feel compeIled to conceal or lie about their sexual orientation. As noted above, experiencing
barriers to integrating one's sexual orientation into one's life (e.g., by being able to disclose it to
others) is often associated with heightened psychological distress and has negative implications
for physical health.
57 Herek, 2009a; see also Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Herek & Sims, 2008.
58 O'Shaughnessy, Russell, Heck, Cahoun, & Laub, 2004.
59 e.g., Meyer, 2003; Mays & Cochran, 200 1.
65 O'Shaughnessy et al., 2004.
61 Herek et al., 1999.
57. In addition, to the extent that the threat of being stigmatized motivates some
lesbians and gay men to remain in the closet, it further reinforces anti-gay prejudices among
heterosexuals. Research has consistently shown that prejudice against minorities, including gay
is significantly lower among members of the majority group who knowingly have
contact with minority group mernbers.63 Consistent with this general pattern, empirical research
demonstratesthat having personal contact with an openly gay person is one of the strongest and
most consistent correlates of heterosexuals' tolerance and acceptance of gay people. Anti-gay
prejudice is significantly less common among members of the population who report having a
close fiiend or family member who is gay or Indeed, an extensive analysis of
empirical studies examining the association between prejudice and personal contact between a
wide range of stigmatized and nonstigmatized groups found that the link is stronger for sexual
minorities than for other types of groups, including those defined by race, ethnicity, and mental
illness.65 Prejudice tends to be lower when a lesbian or gay friend or family member has directly
disclosed her or his sexual orientation to a heterosexual person, compared to when the former's
sexual orientation is known but has not been directly discussed.66
b2 Although the specific content of prejudice varies across different minority groups, the
psychological dynamics of prejudice are similar regardless of the group toward which
that prejudice is directed.
53 A rneta-analysis of more than 500 studies of contact and prejudice based on sexual
orientation, nationality, race, age, and disability found a highly robust inverse
relationship between contact and prejudice. That analysis also found that more rigorous
studies (based on observed contact rather than reported contact) yielded greater effects,
that contact changed attitudes towards the entire outgroup (not just towards those
individuals with whom subjects had contact), and that majority group participants
experienced greater changes in attitude than minority group members (Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2006).
64 Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Familiarity encourages acceptance,
2000; Vonofakou, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007.
65 Based on their meta-analysis, Pettigrew & Tropp reported that ". . .the magnitudes of the
contact-prejudice effect sizes vary in relation to different target groups. The largest
effects emerge for samples involving contact b e e n heterosexuals and gay men and
lesbians . . . . These effects are significantly larger than are those for the other samples
combined . . . ." (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, p. 763, statistics omitted).
66 Herek, 2009b; Herek & Capitanio, 1996.
B. California's Prohibition on Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Reflects and

Reinforces This Stigma.
58. Just as sexual orientation is inherently about relationships, so is the stigma
associated with homosexuality. AIthough sexual stigma is often enacted against individuals (e.g.,
through ostracism, discrimination, or violence), it is based on those individuals' reIationships
(actual, imagined, or desired) with others of their same sex. Sexual minority individuals are
stigmatized not only because their private desires are directed at people of their same sex, but
also because of the nature of their intimate relationships (i.e., because their sexual or romantic
partner is of their same sex). hdeed, a person's homosexuality or bisexuality ofien becomes
known to others only when she or he enters into a same-sex relationship, regardless of whether
that relationship involves a single sexual act or a lifelong commitment to another person.
Consistent with this observation, psychological research has shown that heterosexuals' reactions
to same-sex couples are typically more negative than their reactions to heterosexual couples, and
this bias is ofien outside their conscious awareness or control.67
59. Because it restricts the opportunities of sexual minorities relative to heterosexuals,
California's voterenacted prohibition on marriage by same-sex couples is, by definition, an
instance of structural stigma. It conveys the State's judgment that, in the realm of intimate
relationships, a same-sex couple possesses an "undesired differentness" and is inherently less
deserving of society's full recognition through the status of civil marriage than are heterosexual
couples. This according of disadvantaged status to the members of one group relative to another
is the crux of stigma. The State's distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples is
stigmatizing even when same-sex couples are granted most of the legal benefits and obligations
conferred by marriage through domestic partnerships. Irrespective of such benefits, the
"differentness" of domestic partnerships, compared to marriage, is evident. Indeed, by taking
away the right to marriage that California same-sex couples once enjoyed, while maintaining a
separate, quasi-marital status that highlights their "differentness" from heterosexual couples, and
67 e.g., Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006; Jellison, McConnell, & Gabriel, 2004.
by thus devaluing and delegitimizing the relationships that constitute the very core of a
homosexual orientation, the State compounds and perpetuates the stigma historically attached to
homosexuality. This stigma affects homosexual and bisexual persons as a group, not only the
members of same-sex couples who seek to be married.
60. Data are not currently available to systematically assess the psychological impact
on lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians of the State's revocation of their right to marry.
However, data from other states where ballot measures have been passed to prevent same-sex
couples fiom marrying offer relevant insights. Two recent studies, each using a somewhat
different methodology, documented significant increases in psychological distress and symptoms
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults after the passage of such measures in statewide elections
between 2004 and 2006. Comparable increases were generally not observed among lesbian, gay,
and bisexual residents of other states where anti-marriage ballot campaigns did not occur>&One
of the studies also included heterosexual adults in the sample, and did not find comparable
increases in distress and symptoms among them.69 Although neither study establishes a
definitive causal connection, their findings are consistent with the conclusion that experiencing a
statewide election campaign in which one's right to marry is taken away exacts a psychological
toll on lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. To the extent that these findings can be generalized to
California, they suggest that the revocation of marriage rights - like other enactments of stigma -
is linked with heightened psychologicaI distress among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Insofar
as lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians actually had the right to marry prior to the passage of
Proposition 8 - in contrast to other states where ballot measures preemptively barred that right
from being granted in the future - it is reasonable to expect that they may have experienced even
greater psychological distress as a consequence of its revocation.
6g Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, & Hasin, 2009; Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, & Miller,
2009.
59 Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009.
I declare under penalty of pejury and pursuant to the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: October 2,2009

Gregory M.Berek, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT A
References Cited
Adams, 1. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An
integrative analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social PJychology, 72, 1177-1196.
American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Mental disorders: Diagnostic and statistical
manual (lst cd.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2005, July). Support oflegal recognition ofsame-sex
civil marriage. Retrieved October I, 2009, from http://www.psych.orgIDepartmentslEDU/
LibrarylAP AOfficialDocumentsandRelatedJPosit ionStatemcntslZ00502.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2004). Sexual orientation & marriage: Adopted by
the APA Council ofRepresentatives July 28 & 30, 2004. Retrieved May 17,2008, from
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.htm I
American Psychological Association. (2009a). Report ofthe Task Force on Appropriate
Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 1,
2009, from http://www.apa.orglpillgbc/publications/therapeutic·response.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2009b). Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative
Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved September 27, 2009, from http://www.apa.orgipillgbc/publicationsJresolution-
resp.html
Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in
the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, (46), 1-23.
Bozett, F. W. (1982). Heterogenous couples in heterosexual marriages: Gay men and
straight women. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 8(1), 81-89.
Brown, S. L. (2000). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression
29
among cohabitor versu marrieds. Jozmral ofH.eallil and So i(;J./ n..htJ"(fJl'", 4i. 241·255.
Burton, r. D. 1998). Global integraLl,·., m,,=ing as II D1~iatiltg qr in the
rdatiQn hip be:lWe'CTI ~ocial rolllS and psychological dishes. Journal Dj Heall" and SQCial
Bdl£Njor, JQ 201-215.
Carpen Gr, C. ' .• &. Gates, G. J. (2008). Gay amllcsbiBIl pBrtnm:hip: [vidco« liQIII
litomia. [)('l1logr,rph)·, 45, 57J·5~.
CllerliJl. A. J. (:1.000). Towatch ne home 'OCtaec.(J'IQOIic~ of union fonnation.llll..J.
"he. C. BlICmeb, M. Hindin, E. Thomson. &. A. Thornton &Is.), 771e Ii.es thai hind..
r~r Pf tn'¢s on /lrQr, ge ,emil coflabiral on (pp. 126·144). N~' Yark: A rill"" de Gru)'le-f.
IlcrliD, ,.". J. (2004). r~ d<:instiMionaJ.izatioo of AmerIcan man1~e.J(Jltmal <if
Ml11'ria/{f! aM Family, 66(4), 84~-86t.
Cole •. W. (2006). ocial thn:al, pcmlnal idcnlity, and pbysical healdl in clos.e~gay
m<'ll. In A.M. OIlloto &; RS. Kurtzmlll1 (Bds,), S ual orientation wu! llItm/al heallh: Exumifl;ng
itkmil)' mll1 tk>~Jopm "1 ill I ,h/{HI, ga)'. ellla bl.! l/{ll people (pp. 245.2(1). WashillgJ.On, 0:
Amerkilll I'$}'cI101on-j <Ill A1;""cjPI;oo,
C agee. J. I. (1975). Pruc~lIn!ts of the II mcrieanP5)'chological Association,
lncorpora1ed, for til year 1'n~: M.i:llute of dIe annual meeililg of lheCoUDci] of
Rcprescnt.lltiVl • Amer '(;on Pil)!elrologJn, 30. 62Q·651.
Cooney, T. .,. blenllerg, P. (1992). upper! fi'om parenl$ aver the life coune-: The
adull child' perspective. So lal FQfCU. J I). 63,.jl4.
orngan, P. \V., \V1I1.\l:)n, A. C.. Heynnan, 1. L., W:trpinslt~ A., Gra i.n:, G.. lopen, N.,
& HalL, 1.. L. (10ClS). 'trucwral "gma in stale legisl lioll, ~ '}'Cfl tJJrlc nrir:.e. 56•.557-563.
Da!; upl1>, • & Rh'''fll, 1... . (2006).. rom ButOOlat1C antigay prejudice 1o behavior: The
mode:rallng role ofoonsciaus beliefs ab01l1 gc::nder and behavioral control. Journal ofPersonalitll
30
andSoclal p 'C1to.Iog}'. 91.268-2&0.
Devine, P. G. (19 • P~judicc and OUI-f,COUp I"'rcqJl:ion.ln . Tcsscr (Ed.). AdYQoccd
~'ocial psychology (pp. 467-524). cw York:: McGraw-HilL
DiCamillo, M. 8;; ield, (2(09). Varus ''e"1)' sharply dMckd if tuWl 10 tkclde on a
....., aJ1l.rnlunQI I ndm 11/ 10 alJOII' am.-s.x ",i1"i~ . an frnnciscc: Reid Research
IpOration. Retrieved eptem.ber 2&,2009, from http:! 'WW, cld.comltieldpollonJi
subscn ersJiUsZ 0 l. pdf
Di~ner. .,' uh, . ., U a R. E • mill\, 1I. L. (I 999}. Subjective wei Hx:ing: Tilree
d~es of prosr='. Psyd!Ol()gical Bul/elill, 11 • 27 302.
Dovidin.J. F, & GaCl1ner. ". . 199}. teremypes and e\·illuali"e inlergroup bias. In
D.M. M dde & D.L. Hmnilllm ( ds.), if ct, cognfrion.and srm!()lyping: IIlI.racriv proces e
(II J:TOup pe.rct!ptioll (PI" 167-19 . ~l>n [) icgO, CA: Academic Pre .
Familiarily em:oUJ1lgc:s IIOOCplBnce. (2000), TI Prlbli fcrspedhY!. JI( I. l.
Foder.lfo, L. W. (2009, June I L). GlI)' l:'oV Yorkers Head 10 Greenwich for Wcddin
N. York Times Re[tie~ eplember :10, 2009, fioom bttpJlwww.nytirnes.coml
2009/06llltnyre-gionillgreenw' h.hunJ
F lkrnan, ., Cbe DC • M, Collen • L Bocoeltari, _ & Cooke, i. (I ),
Pcmhcn;svCl1lcnt depressive mood and its prebereavanent predk.t~ in HIV+ IllJd HI • gal'
men. Joumal oj P rsoooJfry andSocial P c)'choloKJ'. O. 336-3411.
Gates., GJ~ Bad c:tt. •V ., • Uo. D, (2008). Marriage, rc[{islFaJion curd di....olutioll h
saml!-sex couples in til US. Los Angele : The WjJJjJml In.sIilute, ni"\'ersil)' ofCllllfamia, Los
Ang les. Retrieved 5epkmbcr J6 2009, from
hnp:llrcposilories.cdh'b.ortIuclalawlwilli:un,;,l'ales_I
(]()ffman. E. 1963). Stigma: N()I•• ()n the muna emerll 0 spoiled /denr or. EnglC'hood.
3l
Cliffs, NJ: Pr"ntice-Hall.
Gnnsmk, J. ,(1991). The empirical basis fo.rll:le demise "rtbc ill",,'>5 m oklo
brmJ05Cl(uality. In J.e. Gonsiorek JD. Weinri h (Eds.), lTDI1l<J$t!Xllcliry: R ell 11 imp!lcalioru
/0/' puhlic policy (pp. 115·1 6). Newtwy Park,Ck ge.
GQillsioroK, J. "' til; Weinrkh. J. D. (1991 . The ddiniliOll iIJ1d oopc; Qf5iC;1l;'!4I1
oriclll1ltion. In J.e. Gonsiorek &; J.D. Weinrich (Eds. • /{uTlros<!nuoity: R<!seardr jllJpficatrc'~f or
publi policy (jIfJ. H 2). Newbury!'ark.. A: :ij\e.
eo"", W. R. Hugh~, M.• &: 'le. c. B. 1983. Does marriage MI' positive effC'C1.S Dn
!he p!i)'cholo~iCllI wclHlcing oflhc indi idual? Jo~nltl! ofHealll/ andSo Jal Be/raviar, ~4(2),
122-131.
Cove, I. R., t)'l" . B" & Hughes.' • n 990). The ctrccl of ma:rriage 011 the wei]·
bcin • of adult... A !h"nrclical BINlIY!'i". J(}1Irfl()/ () FONtfl. fuuc • 11.4·35.
HJ.t'lecbuehler, M. L., cLau "hJ in., f(... A, " C)'cs. K. M~' H in, D. • 20(9). The
imlllllCl ofinstitutiolU1l disct:imirurutln "" pS)'chialric disorders in L ,13 popul!Jlions; A prospecli",e
smdy. AnrerlcmtJu",'/jfjj oJPubilc flra/Ifr, in pres [Under Embar 0: Con.fidcnli.lll Until
PubliClllionJ.
He:tlOIl, T. B~ & Albrecht, .L 1991). tableWlh~pp. mrJrriI,,=JaflmaflJ!Mamnge
(Jnd lh FtIIll/ly, -J. 747-7511.
Herclt, G. M, (19 • Wh>'tclJ i you're lIOl3sked elf-discIOOllre, bltet~llp ((In!: l,
Md hCICrooexuols' oUj~ocles ltIwwd lesbians ..mlSBy me... In G.M. Her-ck. J. Jobc. & R.. Carney
(Eds.), O"J IJlftJn:~: SeXlllllrJri• .,loliDIl alllllhe military (pp. 1~7-2.2Sl ClJicagQ; niV(lfSit of
Chi go Press.
Herek, G.. M. (2000).l.JoliloscxlLil([t; , In A. . Klrldin {Ed.), &rqdopedlQ 01fM) horogy
(Vol. 4. pp. 149·153). Wasbjn~on, OC: Amcncan Psyc.h logk~1 AssoetatiOll.
2
H~",k, G. 1. ( 001 "H mo uaHty. In W.E. Craighead .B. Nemeroff(E .), The
Corsim eJlc)'clo~tfla of~hqlogyanJ bef/Cl!ioraJ sc;;eoce (3rd ~~ J. 2. pp. 683.688). New

Yor\(: John V.'il~: & ons.
Herd.., G. M. 2002. Gi=nd~r gaps in pubUe opinion bout lesbian iIIId gllY men. Pub/.t:
OpinIOn Quartu!y, 66, 4D-66.
Herek, G. M. 006). Lq;lll r~nition 0 same-se. reltllionshi in the United lll1es:
social scien e penpecti'·C.A",,,rican P h%gi t. fif. 607·621.
Here G. M. 2009a). Hate cri~s nd igma.reJated l!lpetienres amen se;wat
minority Mulls in th., nited tnle5: Prt: alence C Lnllll Ii'om Mti nal probnbHil)' s;unpte.
Journal ofJ/Ilerpersonal Jlio1J!nre • U. 4-74.
Herek. G. M. (2009b, exual igma and uat p~judice in lh United tIltes; A
cOllceptual framework. In D • HOpe fEd.), Contemporary perspeC/iOJ<:,' 01 l~sb'UlI, gtIJI ulln
bisuIlLl1 id,m/rti' .. '17K j41h N~brwkll Symposinm on Mmn'utlon <pp. liS-Ill). New Y .rk.:
pringcr.
Here' G, ~& Capilallio, J. P. 1996}.· orne of my mends": Intergroup contact
conccal@ble Iigma. lllId II te sexuats' IHliwdes toward 'ay m~n llIld I . I'trWlluJr nd
Soda! P 'ChQlogy fJ"JI"JUI, 12. 412 24.
Ha-. J. M~ &:. pitanio, J. P. (1999). e differences in 110 hctCrtlS<'XUAlo; think about
lesbians and gay men: E\'idcn.c~ from sun,ey c ntC1C1 e ccts. JOIfr/!(// ofS· h arth. 36. 3 8-
60.
Her!:'" G. M... & Game L. D. (2007). ~al ariatlatian sJld mental hcaJIh. AIII/ual
&'oInt' ofQm cal P$}'Chology, 3, 53-375.
Hc~k. G. M.• Gillis. J. R~ & Cogan. J. C. (1999~. PsychQIQgi!:31 sequelae ofhatc-<:rime
victimization among lesbian. gay. lid bisexual adulL., Journal of O1lSlI}HIIg QJtd '/i"iaJ/
3
P'}'cno!<JfJ', 6 • 94>-9:51.
Hcrck. G. M.• GilH • 1. R.. & COI!liiil, J. C. (2009). [lilemali7..c;<!~ligmll~mO.Jlge..ual
minoriry adults: wigb15 liom ~ social psychological penpectlYe. Journal a!f.'ourueli/Jg
Psychology, J6{\), 2-4 .
H~rc:k, G. t. 01\1111, • K, (1993). Interpersonal coolact and heleroSCOJmll!s' R[rilJJd.~
toward gay men; l«sults from natiOllal surve}'•.IoliFnal a/Sa Resemm, JQ 239·244.
Herek. G. M.. NorIon, A. T .• Allen. T. J~ & jm~ C. 1. (2(09). DemD 'rllf;'IJic,
psycllOlugical, and social characteristics of elf·ldenrifHld 1 hinn.. ·ay. and biseJuJAl ult~ in a
U.S. probability sample. & uallty }Ws<'arch <lIm Soc ell Pall'cy, [n p.ress.
Hertt, .' ., &. inti>, • :!003}. S<::xual oriclltlltion and lol4ID1 ictimizatfon: lIare
crimes and rnLfm3le pu:r1JJer violence alllOlli gay and bise 1131 males in th United tat In R.I.
WoHlski. R. Stall & R.O. Valdisem ("E.tls.). UP1f!qualopprmwri '.' R alrh disparitl' 'rJIIUmg go}'
ar,d hLI"I!.IIItJi nnrn in {he Uni/"dS/arl!.' (PEl. 35-71). Nc;w YQf~~ Oxfwd ojvcr:rity Pres
H"fCl, •., Men:dk, R., ekhu' I. (20()4, M1rn:b 13). Numbers put facc 011 a
phe.n<lmena; MQ~l wl>o marri.d a:re middle-Aged. have c Ikg~ degrees. San FroPf<:JM» C'fr()llfd~,
p, AI.
Higgtn D. J. (2006). SJlme-sex 1lta.Cl.lon in Itetero~ually pll:tUlercd men.: Reasnns,
ratiol1!lll~ and relJ~cl:iollS. S I {Pfd Rrlario'l hlp'11lef'ilfJ}'. Z/(l), 217-22-8.
Hooker, . (19S7). Th~ adjustmcnI of the malt vert h<!lII<lSCx'ual. Journal o/l'roJull>'f!
Tedmiques, 1/. 18- I.-
Hus!on. . L.. Mdz. H. (2004). The Cil;SC for (promoti.og) mmi~e: The devil is to the
de!ails.Ja.rrnra/ lJfM<I1"ri.age alld F(1,,,il • 66(4), 94 - 8.
Jd!i$OO. W.I\" c onnell, .Il.~ &: Gabriel,~. ( (04), J.mplicit and c plieit measures
of sexual orientalio'111Uliludcs: [nllmup p;efer:ences Bnd ~clBted behaviors iLnd diet's among llIIY
3
and straight men. P~TSallalily QIld SaciGf p. halQgy Bulieli.., O. 629-642.
JohmiOn. N. I .• Backlund, E.• Sorlie, P. D, & Levdess, C. A. (2000). M ri [Slams and
IDQJUlHtr: The National Longitudinal Monalil)' wdy.Jimra'~· aJEpidemiolQgy. J(/, 224-2 8.
ai_ Family foundatian. (2001 ).Ins/tit"",: .A r~fJ1)ri all 'he aperil!lN:e.• f)f I :shinYlS,
gays. and hI t.ruals itt1'l1llerim and the pI/blre:' view Oll.< "'~ and JXllities relnr d 10 all/l/
aril!nfol on. Menlo Park. CA: Autboc. Retricved QI'c;mb(,r 14, 200 I. from hllp:l/www,kftorg
KiecoLt'(}Laser. J, K., & CIYllln, Too L (2001). Mama e lUll! hcaJih: His and hers.
Pry IlrilQX Q,/i Burrelj'n.a 4,472-503.
Kinsey, C•• Pom roy. W.B•• ' artin,C.E.( I948). &;mGf behffiliorin the ll11f11nll
mal . I'hilmlclph in, I' ;' . B. SBundm.
Kinsey, A. .• I'oolcroy. Vol. 8 Mmin, c. E.,

1 Gebhard. P. ii, (19S 3). Srxuol befravior
JIJ tire human female. Pltiladclpilia; W.B, Saunders.
KllJl:kk, L. A. 1998), R<:'bItillosbip oolcomcs and iheirpredictllfS: tOD;gilUdiJlal e idenee
from hel" ' 'ual mmicd, gay c bllbiling, and 1 l>bian COIulDiting couples. Jazlnllli ofMorrlalf;t!
row tire alllif, 6(1, S5 - -S68.
I..alIlt11IIln. E. O~ (lag n, 1. I I.. Mi~hatl, R. T, &M[Cbads,. . (l994 . The .",cia!
or-gal1fZ<lJlon oJ s~:ttJaiil)l: S :xJIQI praC! Cl'sl" the U" 1ltdSJull!:s. CMcago: Utl.i\'CNlty of OIi a'o
Pl'es:s.
Levinger. G, 196ij, Mmilal cohesLveness and dissolution; An Int"'''!:lrutive review.
JOIIr/IO/ ofMarriage and the Fll!mty.:1 • 19·28.
Link. B. G•• & f'bclan. J. C, lOO]). Conceptual.i2.illg igm.a. Annlllil &"'f!'V a/Sac ,,10K",
• 61-185.
Mar<:'J.:h, R. (20MB, March 9). ' m~-~ rouplcs nock to Il,lly-frim<ll)' anada. &m
FrafICisctJ "ronicle, p. AL
35
Mn=:n, R. (200-1b, cp~rnlK:r 20). Gay cautious a.b()IJ1 new pilltnC'rs law; some pi out,
fearing legal or rlDilllcinllroublcs. 'an F'(11 i.w:o hl'Olficl RJ n-ie"ed Augusl27, 2007b, from
bttp:11 fg Ie. mlcgi-bfnlartide.c i?fa lclal2004109120 G L8RO l.DTL
Mattin. J. L 1988).!'s. hologie JeOJlSl:qucnees ofAlD -related berea,'cment DmDllg
ay men. JOUF1l/l/ of ()nwlti1tg alId limc,u p~ 'Cho/(}j{y. 56. 856-862.

Mays, . !lit, &. Cochran, . D. POOl). cnial be:ilih correlares of perccived
discrimination am n Icsbiatl, gay, and bisexual :ldul in the Uniled ClIes. American Jou17lnl of
P"bflc Heallh, 9/. 1869-1876.
Meyer, I. fI, (2003 . Prejudice, socral slTess, and menUlI h~lIh in lcsbillJl, ~y, nd
blsexll31 popu] ions: Concepwal i!;sues and reSC3lCh I,,,'i~nec. P~cllologlcoJ Buffel/n. /29.674-
697.
M iell els, S. 1996). The pre <llence of hfllnosexualily in Ibe United 1.<ltcs. In R.P. Cabaj
T. tein (Ed ). r,-xlbook ofholllwrexllu{ity and menial heallh (PI!. 4 ·6 ). \ bin DIl, DC:
AIDerj n Psychiatric Press.
ock, . L. (199 -).. comparison of m iag and cohab!ting relatiomhips....I umal of
Fomil IssrteS, /6,53-76.
• bauglmessy, M., ~1I. .T.,H • K., Ca!hOWl. c., &Laub, Co (2004 . Soft P/acI!.
In Leanl; Clltl5(!q~. 0 H<J1fl-." 111 BCMcd on Actlial Or Pe,u".~d&xual OrfentatlOn and
Ge"de, No,... on prmi1j>' and SIep,. 0' l(lking Sdtool r. an Francisco. CA: Califomi Safe
h Is COllliti n. Retrie"ed 2009. eptemlJc,r 27, from httpJlww",.=fcschooL.org:
fePIacelOLe rnLo'" .pdf
Olsoo, G, (2009. ugust 30). Wedding unites 9 gti. ouples Dl Des Moines church.. Des
Moi Regfsr r Retrieved pternber 20. 2009, from hr1p:l/m..desmoinesreg,ister.comldetail.j p
?key=5150JS rc=tn&fuIl=l.
6
Pac~i,. J. E. (2007). The psychological implicllli os or OOIlccallng II igm' A
eogllili e... lIecli",,-bch.a\~oralmood. p. 'Cirologlcol B,,/Ielm, JJ3.328-345.
Pettigrew. T. L & Tropp. L. R. (2006). metlHIJlalyti lest of intergroup COnlnct Iheary.
JoumalofPersonoliryandSo<.'ia! PS}-'Cho/og}. 90,151-18 .
Pel" Re - Center for Ihe People and the Press, 20 • May 21 .lntkp<rntkn15lake
Cl'J1l r rag in Obama ua: &clum -/: Religrnn and .weia! "alue . Attit,m aOOul homoxxualil}'
uJ S<J1f~'S(!~ nrllrT1a • Reu-i eli tember 28. 2009, from hl1p:llpcoplc;:-.pres org!
rep<> pugeid=1519
PrevitI., D_ & Ama~ P. R. (200 ). Wb, stay married? ~CWllnls. bwTicr and marital
smbiJjI}'. JOuma! oIMarnQ)!.t andFamtI., 6 (3 ,561-57 .
Ramo • C q Goldberg. .G•• & Badgen. M.Y.L. (2009). The e ea.. (I pm;uriug equality
ill Mossoch ells: A l1'W)' 0 lire r-XpC~ e'K:e~ and impact ofmarringe on ame·~co"!'I..... '[l1e
illiBms bmitu1e ( nive ity fCalifornia, Los ng les). Retrieved Sep«:mbe'r 20.2009, from
I1ttp:I/",'Wv.·Jow.uelll,eo;!\LlwilliamsinslilUt pubJicalionsfEflectsJlNALpdf
R SS, • • (l99S). Rec n~lUlIlizin.g marital SlaIllS as a continuum ofsocial anachmenL
JOIUllaf 0 Marriage and III Family, j (l), 129·140.
Ross, C. £.., Mira"" lit , J., Gold cen, • (1990). The impact 0 the rami! on bealth:
The d=1de in review. Jouma! af larriage mid tlli' Family. -Z, 10- 1078.
RJ osk)'. . ~ Riggle. E. D. B~ H me, . G_ & Miller, A. D. (2009). ManiBge
amendments and psych I gieal di5trC in lesbian. g • and bi ual (LGB· dulls. Jouniol of
oumeling P -cholag}', 56, S6-66.
.chaft'f, . ~ l\e.w. G. • (2009). Trends: Tol nee in !be United tal . Public
Opinion uarl Iy, .4-431 .
.imon, R, \ . (2002 • Rc . iring the relaliO'J1sbips among gender. m rital s&ttu. and
37
men I healtil.Alm:nC<U1Jo.unal aISociolog)), 107, lOG ·1096.
olamon, . E~ ROlhblum, E. D~ Balsam, . . (200 ). Money. hol.lSCw ric.. sex. Bnd
connict: : mc-:;c couples in civil uni ns. those oot in civil union5, and Ilctcroscxual m=ied
siblin 's.. Sex Roles, $2, 61- 75.
pm:her, . (19 8). Investment model. equil)'. d social support drte:nnirwlls 0
rdati nship c.iltIImitmcnt. to/ P 'Ch%RY Quarfl'rry, 51. 31&-]28.
tack.,.. hleman. J. R. (1998). MariraI llrllS lind happin~: A 17-nation tudy.
JQumoi (if Iorriage ond tl • FamJly. 60,527-5]6.
~. han. E. D~ Benne W. R. M.. R , J., & Roy-Byrne, P. P. (2007). Di ure 0
HTV slaIUS and se ual om:umtion indepeudclltly predicIs inc.reased absolut<: CD4 cdt counts
over time fDT PS) hiatric tic:nts.l:'s 'l;JWJQ1IWIIC Medicine. 69,74-80.
Umberson. D. (1992). RdaliolL~bips 1x!twecn lld"lt cllildrcn and their paretlts:
psychological coosequ.en es for bolh ·enenttrons., JOJlrooJ 01 ;farr'oge (llld /1 Family,' 4, 66 -
674.
Vooofakou, ., Hew one, M., & oci, A. {200n. Contllct wim out-group friends;u a
prediClOf' of mt"~altitudinlllsiren lh and accessibility 0 ttitudcs to\\'aJ'd gay men. Journal of
P rsOJItl(IfY (JJI(J StxUiI PJ)'Cholagy. 9. 04- 20.
White, L. '. Booth. . (1991). Divorce 0 er-lhe Life co= The rotc 0 marital
happint".~ JOU17lal Q
~ Jlliilms, _(2003). Ha..~ the future ofmmrlage lIlTived COIItemporat')' examinatioll of
ender. mani e. and Jl$)Thologi I Wt"ll-bcing, JOlin i 01B aJJI. wid Sodol Bc/lDl'lor, -/-1, 470-
487.
38
EXHJBITB
GREGORY M. HEREK; PH.D.

])e;p3ttlfienl of P!.ych"!ogy
U Di,,~r~;ly Qr, ~lifornill
hi~lds A "·,,nu~. [);jvi.. ~ 616-8686
(J30 152-8085
~I"i/' RJIIhcrc: • d:a.vis.~du
EDUCATIO,
B. Uni"crsity of Nohrosb at Olm\h~ I 71. M~jlJl> in Psycbology Bnd
Sociology JnagJl3 """ laude).
M Univ<:i:>ity 0 California at Da.,is, ~980. P.,..o lity ~",d iill y bology.
PILD. Uni""",lty of ;;U~ mi.. ;t ....·ls. L983. PcfMmalily Bnd Soda! P5c}clwloll)'.
Po5l-0""loml Fellowship Yale Un'""",ity. 19RJ.-198S. ~ ".,1 ~}'oboloro'.
CADDIlC AND RESEARCH APPOINTMENT

I999-PR:Kol Profcssor. oivcrsily ofCBIifurnin at O.. "i•.
2000 Oi>II'lI!ui 'bed VI lllng hoi"•• Ri"bllfd nnd Rhod.. Goldman School of Public I'<lllq,
ni,'e"'it)' orCalifom' Detbky,
1994-1999 RJ)=ld'!l}'~""I~I~t" . III"cnil "rCalifornLoLal Ihvis.
19119-1 \I'M Associal" Rrsenrch PsyohDto!!ist, Unl l!f\I;ty of Ufwuia . I Oa"i..
19116·1989 YOrlmJl ,I'rofc.,o•• Orndualc Program in Soo;..1""d P<:I.onallty I'sy I"l(>~'. Or.!du; c
Ceo!eTotlbe City Univeml)' of}.lewYorL
191!6 Vf:sillng ,o\!Jsisla:Jltl'ror~. '. Y~le Unl""...ity.
1985-15l116 1.c:~. Yalc Univcr:sity.
19114 'Vi ,ling L~r, Bmnfonl;md EmJ SlilCll Calteges. Yale Univcro.ily.
I9ltl-1 9115 I',,"d ",I F~l1~w ill Pers"rnillly OUId Soc;jlll Psychology, Yole UIli""rsity.
WIll-1m Te hin ......_i.~t, Res,,""il A .... IaTI~ iIlId Telldung Associate ifll's)'cl>o!ogy,
Unl ity of CaUfornia t O""i
IENTlFlC D PROFE . 'IONAL ERVICE

20M Ad Hoc R.'i.""'" uionol 'em:c fOllDdstion.
2009 Ad Roc Reviower, AJltho~)' Morelli noc F,,"odzt£OJl maUGranls Progr.un.
l0l!'7-l00 ' Cw, Fello_ Commin"c. Society rOIl 111" Psychol I al St""y"rS""i I ru"",. (/\l'A
Divi.iofl 9)
r, W ,''''' l'I"'ok Aw;m! ;cmlifie Review Commlnoo. Amcl'k,nn Psycbologioa.]
Found tlon,
2003-1007 Momller T Foree ,,~Se ...1OriOlllQI'on llJIII lilitiu)' Scm"", American
,",yeJu>logrc..1k"",;oti(>ll.
(<<Jll1inueJ)
Gr..'gfJ/1' JIL HdY:A, PIr.D./l'age 1
CIENTIFIC A PkO~-1<: 'S 0 AL ERVIn: (CDn11flul!iJ)

2ODZ-20DS MrnlMr, A.wisory Boord rM 'the NatfQllal Sc u:aI !tesOlm;. Center. Spocs"",d b}' the
Ford FOicods.1lon and an F",n [ 0 I t~' Uni"'$i1y,
2OD1-2ODS Member. Div"",;!}' Cornmitt<:e, SOl'elY fOf re tl~lll>, "nd cl.ll J'5)·cl!O[Og)·.
2005 Member, Policy 'fll5t Fo"",, Soc;" • for ~ Psy<~ JOSical 1 )' of Soci~l ~.
ZOO:l-2004 Ad 1I~ RcYlc"l:r. u.tion.aJ IMtiture ofMclll<l1 H..... th_
2oo1 Member, Prof:,I:'mI ommitt<:. for" "'lunl OrieDlatWll and M"I1la1 FI ,h~ To'" .rd
Glob"l p.,~pecti1o'Cll on Pm,otto. iIDd Policy" on inlrnJationa] cOllf"rl>Bce co ~ted by
Il~ An ",ric~n P 'Y"hol"t:io.J AlISOCialion IIlUi pmli>5siooal .ocicti"" fJom EnIDp<,
Au:ort3l1- :tod OUIh Amen"""
1996-200L Ad Hoc RlWi."'1lf 1'1 -ollalln~.irtlle ofMent H... ltJ.
2000 Member, Public Imclt's1 AwardsCommi1it£". Am"";,,.." r~yell<>l le..l imion.
2.000 ~cmg",-, lrIiemill'<mlll ROVle'" Comminc:.. World CaDre",,,,,. Oil AmS.
2000 d HocRe,'r.".r. rniona.l oienec FouodartoD.
19!I9-2000 embe1, omroun'ly ".isot'Y Boon!, Progr.m:J in H1IlmIn c>rna/ity SlDdi"" San
Frand""o Sbt<! Uni~etsi'y.
1993 M~mbet, Inlo"",,,,,,oal Rev~w (1tmll1" WOTId Confo:n:l1i<. on AIDS.
1997 Ad Hoc R.cvie"'cr. NatiOllBI Sc-iSllCC FOllndatiott,
J'J96 Chair 0 T1::sca~b workshop. AiDS, Stigma. and Mental H.wtJa: Re.fearcJj 11$= "",I
Dira:ll'om. pon5on:d by the om... on Al DS; Notional Ill5limlO flf enml H..o.Jlh.
1992.95 t~",bc., Natl,,",,1 ("$tilul. of Mema! HCiLlIh' tMII MenlBllkallh. AIDS and
lJlUllllOOfog)' Revi...., COJl1lllIIl""_
1992-94 kmbe., InWm3tiD,nal Sci""t; r",.!'t0ilJllm C"mlniltl!oe.lo"'m;llioh~1Coo CRIlQC ,on
AIDS.
19l!S- 4 Conveoooo Prng[EJ Committec, Ai'A Divlsioo44. (M"",ber. 19l1S-lrl, 1989-94; C"air,
1981·88),
1991.93 "n,'""tl<ilD Pl'Oll"un ommilt"e, ·ric.m Psydologk<d S<!<;lCty.
1986<92 Ad Hoc fto.iOWl!1 ood Sill! Visilm-, IlliWJlLllmll.u.c of c0101 Ilo:o.l.h.
1990-91 C-Oll$1l1lan1, Naliooal AcadC:lJlY of "ic"Ol:. (l,1ftifiiRet on AID Res>e:udt, for Mud)""
the soc; impact of AIDS.
19911 Scientific eoo.ultmllo Socilll Sc'el1l:c Rcsean:b. Couo"U for pmpo!lod N31iol1Al W"'l!IY
'"f HcwlllllJ1d Se~ wtI 8cluty;or
1989 'r of reseMdl work!~op. .11"",,,1 H~/th AJ"""I$ of viol'tICII Tuword LC'sbian' alia
Guy Alt:rl, Res~1o If!'r/4 and f)irecti"",. Sf!')'" red die Ahli'oeml 1I0d Violenl
B "aYlOr 8rllIlcb, National [Imimtc of M~I Ti.allh.
Member, To"', Force DO Ps>",""I"&Y 3Dd AIDs.. Am""i"311 _eholDf,ic:>! 1\5."""'1l",,
(AM).
19S6·8~ O~rpeo':lOO 1I987) "filii ",hber '98V}, AI' mmit~c <In lc.b·1ID and Gay
CO"""f1"'.
1935-37 P",sidcot (1987) and St..,.ing Committee Membet' (19S~·86), Assochl!ion of L' bian
and Gay Psycbo]ogisK
19~5-117 embeJ, APA TBSk. fa"", on ,vojding HOUlrQ$l!Xjl'l J:lias in p,;ycllOl IlOcal ~ilI"l;.
PUBUCPOLrCY A LEGAL" VICE

2009 Primary conswtlml f<>r lJ1Ifi~!d <lD'iiM btt fby ri.iIfn hycboJogimi As;,ooiation iJ:I
Flwido Lkpartmwr OfChlltken And Famillt! "~So Tn Ih • Mal/a 0 AdopriolJ ofXX.O.
",'1<1 N.R. G. :rummariztn~ so";al selmce r,,,,,,,,,,,11 "'00 '1ll1'1D Fk>rid.J I W cOllc<:mmg
d"JItion by giIY mC1I1IlJd lesbians. (Florida Dimi"t CQIII'< of hpp,... r)
2001 Primary QrulYl~t fur "",1m> ~un·i7ll bri<t by Amcrican Ps)'t'hQlogical As$llCil!ti [1m In
rl! MWrl'lll<' Casa. SInJIlmlrizing """i.1 sden.., resoarch rclc,'am 10 Calif.. ",i, I,N.'
"oClc..."ins 1J"ll'ri'- 1::md 5 tIJC-.5C roupl (CoJifornia Supn:mo Coun)
2007 Subm itted explMt atTl4n " in <m""" I 01., l' Bri~Il. summari.Dng socrm ",iC1lCe
J=llITII rde.""t to I113rrl:l c I ~nd Sl!n",.5Cl< couple •(11J1/fil DislIiet ColJJl)
2007 Primary oot15ultant lora"" tH t"Utlae brlelb. Ameli an 1'~ycbolog;CiIl AslKlciaiion in

&mgmr <!l oJ. ". Cmrmriuiol>er ofl'ubl/(' Ht!dlJh oJ ai" ~"ltlmllfitlng l<JlljnJ sciCllCc
r=ar<:-h r"Ie.""t to • Olnn""l;c:ullaw I'1Qhibjring <he- marri~e of SIlDlC-s<:>; couples.
(Connerorut Supremo COlin)
2006 Primary oonsultnnt lor "",irll' ~rjf' tIe brief by Am Ii PsyeholOjic:al As'~D in
CaJ'lOWQ "I at ~, Dcm,c & .Po/y<Ji ",ai., mmmaritinJ! social $Clen .e..... ~h .l"Vllnt
to ~ M;ory I nd tow prohibitillg 1lIc marriage ofSIIIIl"-5<:X couple,. (COOr1 of Appeal. of
Marylom<l
~006 Primary co"'ijl - ~ for amkw ~rlriac brief by AmerlCiIJIl'sycl1ological Ass""iat[oll for
i,; nt. AtiOpJIOIt of itA, cmd M. ,summ;;u:izi1J8 socilll sdenee rc•.,....,h relc"ant II' f<»l£.
palColins by $3Il1e-se <0 ies, (Milio. uprcrnel'wlj.'al Celunl
2005-06 Primary consultant tOr QlOJ ILl' """we b lof by AiTl~""" ~)idJgloi""'l s.,dation In
lkparfnl/!lIt" HilT/fOil SuI'ice:; eJ 01. . Mauhil!w ""\I'nnie/ 01, sornn" ri~ng ci, I
sci....." ",.enroh IC.lcvillll to • ruling by Ihe Arkansas Child Welfare AJl"""Y Il"" je",
Hll!il<d barring GilY :md lesbiAn IOster pan:1ltS Arbmsas upt'ell'le C(lure).
2005 Prinwy ""o,ullim1 for om/cm crlT;o~ brief by Am""c-an hycbolqgical Association in
Ciliums For Eq,/O/ f'ror...,;lfr»l v. Bruning dol., sumrnori:zing social scienc" ~elll'Ch
rcl.ViJIll O. Nc:b~a ""Ie: tllW proh1':bitillg aU recognition of saID.,......" relationship.
(U Coull of APPC:III,., S" Dimici
Primary t") ultllll1 fOJ (Ur.i<:1l,l· c",me bcl.6 by ArncnclIJJ PS}'dwloglcal Associati<>n in
san,,, • e1,,~.. ( l't>r Shlll:/ds <:J.,}. I MadilP'".t lit. and H"-'7fmIlk:cl at ,'s.
/lQ.bfe ,summarlzl ~iaL ,donee' ~ 11 ,el."Wfl '0 iI Now York .mllO taw
probibltiftJl m.. IIWII .. of am-oS x ~ollpl"•• ( YJlRIDC CollTl orN.w v...-l<: I'inll.
Second, llIId Third Judieial Do~" )
Pdm.llr)' coDSultiln1 f...- amfem '-"''';00 briefs b}' American Psychologiea' As~oci:uion in
Ii oJ til .. Oregon, LiN'is v lIurri•• and A",J"'3cn .t 01. "'. WarlJl1Jg,01l_ summarizing
OllCjal d;,~"" '~i."''h reI.,' 110 Sl'lte ta",'S prohibiting ,ho JI1lltrliJ&c of:saJ:l»5cx
couples in 0 gOO, New J~~~. lind W IlingJoo. (OIegOD upremo CDUII. New JClS~
u""rior Coun, Wa~hjllsmn Sup~ ~ C,,~n)
2004 ubmittcd expert d.,., laratioll ill Sa F'rtIndst"O,1. CiJl/frq"lti er d1., sUlllm"lizinll 0I:P1l
scknce ",searcb rclc:vsmlD rnaniagc laws and saIDC-SC;X ooollles<. (Califol'llia upe"- •
Coll1l)
200] I'rimlU}' "<>Jl5U[tull tor ami~-..r riae bricfby American Psych~l ic:Jl Associalion ift
La....re"".~. ram, sllJJ1mnri2ing so"iaJ SCi!CncB ",s<'nld, ",(eva", til st. tc sodomy 1"",.,
(US Sop",me Colin).
(cOIJtmued)
l' LlC POLICY AND LI!.GAL . VI (C(>lffilIU~)'
1002 Consullllllt for allIiam Clil'ffNJ brl~fby Aml!ri r~'d,,'108j I &o"i-"oo In Buy
Scows oj ,4,,,,,,,.,'00 v, District ofCoIumb,a C"",,,,t.,,,lrm "" Hum,m Rlgills, S1lm1olllizing
so,,' :scl"""o rc.OlIIch ",kvant to "'" D.C. Humlllllllllhlll (MImi lOll' onf<ITl:atl=lll>f
f li.<ll:!Crlmio~tion logislaJion again.t dIe Boy OOU[Jl (Diroicr or C"lll;'Iibi C(>'U.fl of
AFl"'iIls,
2001 Consultant for allrle,,,, ~u"'" • bric.f by Amo"""" Psychofog!cal !\s!;()C iatioo in Jeglq 11.
P>.ctNlo, 9W11IJl,,,,i>:iJli oci:ll lldeoec fOSO;m;b r.l.... IlJJIID th<: Arbnsa. socfom}' Law
(A'k""l'll$ Sup"l"je OU<1),
1000 M=b<:r, AdvisOl}' TlI..1< Foree Fo All. S37. ad. ioiog ~ C<IIifumi;, Sial<: SUjlCliolJ:Jlllknl
af Public I....tructiflll "'1 .ooucp, nd pro'OOIUlg ~mDIiYa1cd acts agninst lcllbillJl,
gay, biseJC,uo.l. o.nd -affl(Je,..d stud"" io public .cl>ools.
1000 Coosultllnt for QIIltcIJ.' c"".ae brief by AmeriC811 P$}'dtoll'g[ . I ASW<:l"~,,n In 80)'
&Ort'S ofAWluko v. Dal~, summnri'ziog social ,ofiee ~.l!11;h <elc ""nl to aOligay
dis""iminalary policy by "'" Boy Sooutll . ~<;. upt~ ourl}.
19'17 IDYl"'" participnnt. lUte House Cooferonr~ 00 Flare Crlmtl.
1997 Invilo;d SpCi" or. ~l<Jllid brn:furg lin .11' ~ ('p<ms<>rrd by 1l1~ Americ:m
PsydlOl()' iral As_in1'..n).
1995 Subllllt",d OXP"" ckclatalians in 11/>/.. er 81. ~. u.." runil! W"',l(m v Perry' r' "I,
(sllJDmllIiiilll: soci.aJ ..,icnc:o ",searm role.Vlmt to IRp:m,,,,,,,,t orDef"", e rev i..d I"'rl~)'
poohl iling serr;"" b>' gay pc.r5onncl).
I q ",ul iI t r. "",f<:Its curlIW brior by Amm<llo Psychological AssO<linJiDn in Campbdl
""d .Ill....,•
v, S,llIdq"jsl <JI ai, sUOlIJIiIf.lziog S<Kiat scienco ",scaroh ",lonnl It> T
..,domy L>.w (TellllC5= Court or Appeals).
1994 Consuttil 1 for "",f<:I,s ri"" b-ri.rb Amcri....o P5)",bl>]ogica.l AssodnJioo in Rmr_ •.
£W1n:I, sommurizing social.cienc. ",••.arch rclcvllllt II> a ColorudO s t:alewick il'litUlli¥e
proltiblliog foI:al ~lltlll<:lll.o prol<:CI peoPl. from di,.rimiMlmn on Ule basis ortbcir
sc I micnlillkm (U • 'S11jll'<mC Court),
1995 , Ubfllluoo "I<p"'" Iled~trQ~ .. /Iil~rllJml "J l s iell re.!iOllrCh releVill/11
Dtp3lOllcn, of Oefl!1l<ll! pal;". P !.ibi1i1l8· "rvi • b)' iPY penlo_l in admin' iIli.o
dischatgo proceediog, rar l'eJ1y Officer Mt1rrc.~. PhWps. U . • .ad ,fie s~ Fucci,
USAF.
1994 C 1I1li1nl for "mi CJlTi brkf I»lllm.cn,,;m PS}·I>bologi..d As5IJcimi<J1l in l':qwlity
.{J,mJ"liorr "fOr~IrT '"",nnulf \", Cj ofCi""i'",,,ti, .ummnriziog .•ocio.lllcicncc
..~orclr refev,ul1 tQ 3 court m1ift..ll Ihat iIlJI\IC dOWfl:lll initiali...e prohibi~ "'Me:> 10
l"Ol""t ""aplc From discrimination 0 me !Jag;. of thei, .~~al ,Qrlerll'llioo (U ." DiSrri'l
Court. Souti1A!m Di. triet ofOhio).
199'l Submitted expert d""J:mItlt>!IS summlJr1zing sooinl sdco.,., r...,,,,reb ",lcvlIIIt 10 U. .
DepamnOllt orDer"""" ]lOti.Of proltibiliog "",i"" by II" p=oonoI in lh following
administrnlive disc:hllIg. proceedings: Lt Pau] G 'l1,o/NIJUOfr. USN,' Capt «/drard P.
Ridli!nb<::rg. USAF; LTJG Tracy W.J. Tharn.. 'SNR; 8II.d LTJG RlcJltJl'd Dirk Selland,
USN.
199'l ubmillcd lOXpcrl d... hmItloo. """IIe""I"}"" v, A.,pin e1 aL (:mllllJlarizin,g social s",eoec
rcs~h ",lev""f 10 Dcpilr1.llIeUl of oforu;. ""Eoy l"0b.ibiliQg "",...io. t>y g jlCm>nJloJ).
(<<>nti",Kd)
I]) LEG . L'ERVICE (C{mllfiucd)

WilDe.., COll1mitt~ on .Annod • t!1Ylee U, ,llfflJO. 0 R"Jm'9'n1ll!...."" (Hon. R<loald
OdIums Cbair). H=ingl 00 77", Ptill~}! !mpiica/IOllS of Lifting In.: Ball O.
HfJ/.TIMe:nmu III lhe: MmJt1J'y. Prov'd~ .x""l'lt.~[irnon>' 00 belWf"fIb. i\merk
l's}'cl>oLogical A5s0ciBtto", American PsychiJmi A.,iS.OCiatfo~. J>d four (lin r !Ji11l0lla1
pro =i011..1organiz.alioos..
1993 Corumllarr[ for arm·e,.. curiae bridby AmrriCIIJI .....c..d...,y of Child & A.dQle$c t
PsychiBlry, Arncrkon 1'5}'chological AS$OCiati<m, ",,(1 odie iJllkll1rmJj _, 0011"''13..
mmmariziog social sckooc re.co,d, rel.....""t til .. Co~lt I'\IIJr Ih [",m,,_.d ~ dilld liom
Ibe custody of bis '""bian maille, (Virginia Court of Alll'''llh).
19 3 Submitted expert d~non rummlllizing socialsc;co"" J.".,a",!l.cl.,'""t t U..
DcpilltmCllt of Defense poUcy pn:rhibiliog 501'\';"" by gay p.,"oooo] in the f"IL,,,',;og
IIdmlnisuatlve disobDIgc procc.... iug . HN Berkell!Y R. ..film PtmrbeNfJII, USN, 1~. Murla
2'01: DlIlIIring. tiS ; SI:!. Jltltir, Eb., USMC•
19 3 . uhllliU.:d oxpoen <l..,.;l rdtlon, MlJilllwld -, U.S, iJfJpmlmem ofA'frI1J' INId U.s.
IN,,OIYflft!Jj( "flM h'lllcJl 5lllI\1I'I..I'l~iBJI """'!II ,",i~n .--.rch r~I~"""t 10 '..'y poLlc:y
prollibiting .ervjIX by .I!0~ 'r5()fif>! I),
1992 Submitted cxpelt doolllJ1lDons swnmlllizing lOCinJ scionce rcsc:rrch ..I""ont tIl U, ..
Dcpartm«Lt of Oeli:nse polie}' "ro~ibl'iog s~'io., b~ gay pC1SortJ1lOl1n the following
D.<Iministnnin disobnrge proce<:dingl: Sgt. RidJlmi.4. Kumn, IY.4ARNG, /flY] Volk",
Kenl,McinJlO{d. USN: SSgt TJlOma< P. POllicda, USAF: LTJG ThMy W..I. 11Mo'IN!,
US. It
19 . ubmillcd expelt d""larntion in E",rn.r et aLF. Calarado (strIJIIRarizirrg sooiml ",;"m:",
research relc.....o[ I" Amendment 2. whicb prorubill:d passage or leg.isl:iIlion to prc""nl
~i '<:rimimlioo an!he i. arK IIal "ricntlllion),
~"b""ud e J"'ltffidav;t,DrnW1". \' 17r 'JI (ournnari:.&l!Ig WI:;al odcoa: n::«:lIIl:h
rel.vanl Ul dl . military ""lie)' prohibi,ing .(:(Vi"" b . giIY p=onnc:J).
1992 SuhmiMed npcnd<: In.mtioll., Wood<11'dv. GaUag;..,r(!lllmIDu.rizlfla s iIll ;"lICe
",so,,,,,n relcvlrnt to dis<:rim;nat"'Y oJlll'III}''''ffit policy <If SbO'tlff'. Dop, ft"'.1U of
Omngc Couml}' .. Florida).
IQQI·92 MemlJcr, "" flilllctKo Distril;'l Altmr""y', Spedill Commission DEl Uate Crirnc:s.
1990 Subflliucd e~pcrt .mcfAv it, Mornl•.• eJ at v T""fl.' ("","Ill. a W ~icll"e ~=b
reLc,'""t 101"""OS stale sodomy law).
1991 Submillcd cxpert ilffid:avit, Sf. QrI F. Cllelley et 01, (swnrmlTizing sacinl ",imee ~.JlJCh
nole\'an[ 10 Na,'y polky prohibiting s"""ee by g ..~" personnel),
1988-92 Consu ImLf fot "",lm5 ."rlm: brio by meri"an l'oycbologj",,1 Ass"","oo0
1l1J1IDOrlzl1l.g
F, WUJ,Wrf.
ilOl ,dena: =...
ttb rtlCIi [ to >1iIlc sodamy lows (io"Luding K<!llJ. ky
Keoweky Supreme Cour1),
1988-'&9 Coruml't:am for amJc",,,,,rJaebtie.fb. A"",.1 " I' ~ bolog c;al "j~["'n. r "rk;""v.J,
U.s. Ar",)', lummllfizi~ • sod ",,'""".. "".""'~ ",I." m].O mill bIIn 011 tll~ 1UI<l
l"sbinn mom",,,. (U.S.. Court af ApP"fl.l5, Ninth Cireuil).
1985-:&6 ConsultBDl fD' fRlticw cwi.... bti<:fby Am!:nCIIJIl'5ychlll"gical A5s0d3titJR, Bo....er.• v.
Hardwid:, 5ummnriziog soc;"lscirocc ",search relcvan' ro Georgia. SIlIlomy law (U.s.
upreme Coort).
I 8 WitiJ CU'llilllt",e IthcJ,lolidiU)'. ~be"mr:rilllcc '00 CrimllJi JllsUe.., U, • Ilou 'C of
Ftepresellt3[i'..~ (Hoo, J 1m nyers, C1t1lit). H~ngs on Ifmr.G<; "w"mc~, ['rov ldod
~. lOlly 00 bellaIf f Amen_ !'s. eh I g.i "OCiaIiDIl.
a gill)' ,W. Htl'd, Ph.D_I'~.." 6
'ERVICE FOR CADEMIC JO AIrS SERIES
E:«cutllJ<! Editor
Conf~Jtlpt»'"ary P/!J"spi'cth'& Of' Lesbian, G't)', mtd BUeJrltd! PsycIt-;,JOgF, book rj ~00iJ01J>()rt!d by lIi~
Sock!}' rorthe PsyehoJog,ical S1Dlly ofL<:sbian wid Gay l~u", j' tl'vll:ion 44) a.nd APA.Boo
(1999-2008)
Editor
}'J}'clroJogiea1l' "pecJiws DIr l.cMJIaI, and GD)'ilmm, IIOOna! vo1wnc 51'onsCIn'd by ihe Sooiety rnr tbo
P:syclwlogiul Llldy oflc:sbilUl wid Gay Issu.... APA DivislOfl44 (I 992-2000}
G'R.<ultlng Editor, .4.'5odaJ~ Faitll,., or (~mbe,. of Editl1riRllJOlml or ArMs(1)' BlNlrd

,o\.t:i1deIP 1l<>tJ1l Set-
C,mrelllp'pury Sudol i.,w.",._ (So";OI)l far thol'sYlih"lagical Study ofS inllssucs) ~7 -prc3COJ)
SeJtI/OUry DlId SDcla1 Policy.' Srt.a.... I" Culrlito!, {J..»'ef<lr",,,,,,r, !'Iu",,,f,ip & S«iulllrw./lJ"
(N3tional Scxttalitl' Resou"", Ccnt<!t, S3J1 Fl':lJ>cisoo mte ni\'u ity) (200?pr~"I)
Res""",," Oll Mel! alld Masc .l1illily. (Sag" PubIic3ti.....) (199'<1'pj'es@nl)
A".d"",i. Jonm."
1'>ydfalOID' &, Sa.l£l1iry (1009-l'rescnt)
IlItl!TlJat,<mal Jorm.Di of BeaW, and Dil'l1b,iity-Ri!lated Stff(1f/iJ (2009-pr_nt)
SexuolJIJ! Reteordt l111a SadDi Policy (201tl-pr"""lII)
lLIblall &' GDJI Psyrho1o[(Y Re.-l w, jOOl'llal "fme r..e,bi3" and 03yP$l'~"(ll.o- , . ~L1;.,n Qfth~
Briti.s.1J P.5)Icbology Socicty (BPS) (2007-!'1"""'-')
P5Y ho1ol!~ofMell and ~fareu!J)tl·!y(1.999-20Q<})
Basic and AppliedSodal Pryehology 1997- Pr<l!lC/lt}
The .Io.Jtrno.r ofSe:r K~.fl!DrrJJ (199:i-prcsClJl
:loI"" ol'ld ~ascll',nifj (I 992-prc5ent
JormllIl u/JJo/J1<}5cr1f{//ily (1984-prc5Cfit)
Pl:T>fmlIlff 'ami So<:iDl /'ryehol<Jg>' Bull tilt (2002-21)03)
./QrlnJ(¥1 "! rl~ "',¥)'" . Lcsbi,m Mll4kal AnoomKm (1'196-2003)
JeJurnal ".f l.al>iQII ami Gtry Sac/cd ~ (".1- (1!l") 1-2000)
;J Ho<: Rtl'le!J't!r (/hlrtlQllg1)

Aggre.ui 111 Behavior J. of £-cperiJI'~nfQIS<>clal P,yc/,ology
IUDS &: Be~a1'ior J. of11II1!rp<!ffonal Violence
dllJ.S COTe J. of Lao, fi!Qici"" &: £lilies
Am"",i""" J () .Cum~rurrily i'.f}'ch%g)' .1 0 P"TJOIroliry '" Social Psych%D
"",,"j~ J rJfP,.blle /k4/f1r .1 01 poli/ir;.s
Aonerirdfl P,V)"C$}WS,.1 Merrl{/.PIi:!_ Qr""'/""!I'
Atta!y'" afSadaJ Is5l/~ & Public Pollt:)! Pollfkd! PsychDJogy
Brifisll J. a Social PS} Itology Polltieal Research Qutm~fly
CUrl"''', H/!Olf}, de Sex.,aliry Frofe.uitma/ PS,dlOlag)'
Emotirm F$)'choJ{}gicallJ~11e1irr
£<I'Vpeu" j, t'f S,,,,,,,,I Ps r;J,,,lagy 1'J}~1wi"gfc", R. -i~
Cent1,g Soci'ty 1'. dro/O!?iCnl &i"",~
Group PffJ{3!.fSJ!:J 1nJdf!?'OUP ReltIrf/)fU 1'>J'Cholof(Y ofWmjfl:!." (lJ/lJ)·terl
Henlf1, P.'1}'d~/{>ilY P~b1Ic Oplnlotl QJidI"""iy
J. ojApplidi Soda! P,yc/tolOKJ' SezRo/eJ
J. ojCml.fl,lllJJg& CIi"Jcal P<)'cftala:gy Soc/al Science & Medk:'....
J. ojCOIrtemp<Jrary Cri"'utal Justice 1oio ! P r..~t" •
GT~X/Jf'} M. if, 1Vll Ph DJP, 7
PROFE ON !t[J',tB mp
for P dwlogical 'ODOC (Fellow)
Psyebologk;al 5Ot'inlioD (fellDw)
• 'ely f, r £.xpcmneDlal So<;ia1 Psychology Fellow)
So<:-Iel)' fi r P.- lQ/l 00aJ PS)'cholog)' (APA Division 8-, Fellow)
'ely f, r the hycbologJ.... ludy of Lesbian, G3}', and B....xunllo LIeS (AP OJ ISoon 44, feUo\ )
iOI) f, r the I'5)icbologic:al 'Iudy ot' oeia! Issues (APA DiYi illill9, Fell w)
RE KARCHC EIVED
2004-2006 The ExperlEnaofSllf<INJ til Pen ns wi/" IiJ '1A1IJ:i Univeml)'wick AIDS R=atc:b
Progrnm $99)76).
200 2006 SauDI PrejlldilM QJIrJ Vo, rs'Atlitud... T(lWOl'd PiJ,lk PfJlq I millg SaltaJ
Mizlwll' in 1/1 ",ted SI,,' . The GiD F oDDdation 8,240)
1997-2002 R .{JDS-&larl!d Stigma. II1dep.:n<kDI cieDdS{ Award. ationaJ Insb[Ule of
Mental He 1111 ($429,916).
I 9: -1999 JIIVIAJDS·&Im'M Public .-4mtwies altd Bi!.Ifeji in II", a ion II tilulo of
Mc:ntnl Heallh(51,173,87.!.
1993-1996 {.mgl H~"J/" COl 'qllC'lCffS ofAnti"" -Lesbian Viole""". 3';onall'I>1I",. or
ii![lrnJ f1i!:all~ ($7 ,(9),
1992-1996 GoylBiscruaJ TrJ&JflF)' ami C'lfI"lfJ",IIj/I/o .,."" ,,!lDS Em abooal Institute of Mel1tll
Heal:th S540,295).
198-11-1997 P"bJJc , Ilrm About AiDS; A &xIol Ps)-'clroJoglcal Approoclr_ National 1Jmi1U~
or f"t)[ftIIl~lh(SI 32.963),
1989-1993 1'IJb/ic Reactions 10 AlD.'>. K""",'ledge, AII//W"$, und fklravjor. 3tiOOluJ Insrilul of
kntnl Hoallh (5674,080 .
1990-1992 "lIT"", Di cr If(; ill A1IJS-kt!latoo AmtutJes and &It/lWtN'S AItIOIIK CalJ[OfflJall .
lJllJve '\)'WIde AID . Rose b l'r-ogRm ($ 0,092).
19 7-1989 PublJt: KJJo,.ledR~, tJIl</1ttk>, n<I/khmJlor o""ffling AIDS' A 'aNonal SunY)'.
National Insliruteof knrnJ Heallh(S121 91),
19 7-1988 l'ub/ic Edw.;ation About AiDS PSCICUNY fol11ldmioo (S6068).
19 6-1988- .-4 Net>fli1lerkmDJ 71Ji!<>ty 0 . IlJtud ~t' n II fMe ofM.mlal HCill (15,000)
19 5-1 6 rrli-O 'PrcjrKlice nd Public Reocnmu 10 A.IDS. DCi,,')' fQl 1M I'!ychnJ i oJ
udy 0 'DCi J ls.lICS. Grm1s-in- 'd Progrnm. (51000)
1982 Diss<rtalioo r="""b ranI nom lanai (;3)' d.mic oion ( 10(0).
1982 • et!JlllQO r=;m;b grant from Plycbology Dcpartmmt, University of Colifomia Dl
D-a is ($600),
1979-1981 Aooll3l GtBduate Researcb AYI'llrIli 01 el'5i')' ofCallfOffl;a ,l>.Ivl . (Sl 00 .or3l)
G..g""" {lk.. Pit DfP~
0'TlIER AWARBS AND DO, OR

09 Distinguish'" ...... i"" /\,,;mI, iet)' r".Ib" Psychological Smdy "fLeshl"" Ga~'.
Bi:lC~u.l. iU«l ir' gender Issues tAPA Diy isioo 44). PrcSOllkd at d,e .oou.1
meeting" Ih<: Amcrk I's)'c1",log;nl As.>ot.imtLOll, Toronto.
JOD6 Kurt Lewin Memorial Aw:ud for "1lln$IllJldf con'nbtllJol '0 the dovcJupm.OI ilDd
[nteBJSlioo ofp!i}'cholo~iClll research and s""ialaetlon,R elel) fllT .....
PsydIDJogicl>! Stud}- of ""ial I..."". (APA Di\' [Ol,," 9),
iiJ05 wlllium 8¢viUl Mcm<lriaJ Le<:lun: 00 P5~h"JogJo' mnd Public PoliC)', Amr'ican
i's)'dlologlci>l FOllnd.ti<l1l. Pr=nt~ .1111.• iIOolJ31 meeting "rllJr Amm.,....,
1'S)cboIDgic.u AlI""dadOll, Wash'"1l! 0fI, DC.
:WOS Elected Fellow, odeI}' ror 1'.",,,",1;1}'. Socr"l P.~'cho'og,y, DMsKm oC!he
Americ<ln Psyeho)ogic-aJ Assoc~ation.
2003 "r
Cc:<tilicalc App"",ill1i"n fm p<=r1liog psychological scione" 1D the roorts ill
l.trwr't!."<Y<v, TI!XfU and lldter c-ases ",Iated 1D se~JJ3I <>r,•.,tatiom.li<)m lI,e Soci,,!}' fIX
thco PsychDlogi.elll Stud}' of LcsbLim., Gal',. Wld Bis"",uall55.\l"s, Al'A Divi.ioo44.
Prescote<! at lbe ntlal mectiog of th. Amcrir<rn Psyc.holo,gical As.soeiatioo Torooto.
2110 I !teC'()lth;z"d f, '~Ul' mloM tJ> . iIrdI iltl4l pYb,llc poll,,)' by Ihe ""iety (<If !he
i's¥cnol<>gieal SlIId of Men and M3!lCulinity, API\, PI lsi 1'151. 1'.e.""LCd iIllhio
:umunll11£ctiIlg ofill. mc.lean Psyehologi<a! ociminll, - F...n"i ' •
:WOO Elected Fell"",. oclely 1m- Ihc: PsyclloJogi.cal Study of' ""ioJ I",ucs, Diyiiion 9 of
lbr: Am..ritmt Nych"Jogi"•.l A5s""ialion.
:2000 MBniltt:!Horwlr.e Trost A"'ftfd, uiJll't'CQllni,[otl ofdistill u· hed acllie.'em..m I"
combating 1Iomop1>obia th<OO,gh rn:s.carch and wriling.· P"",enrod at 11.. L~mbdn
Lit"""Y A,,"'Ids h""",oot, ChiclI£"-
:zoeo Elected to mcmbcr:sbip. Society or E"p<:nmeollll s,.,ciall'sycbology.
1999 1999 ward IJr DisllnglJi.bcd 'enli6c COolrU",tion, ociely ror Ibe 1'S~'ch<>!ogic;al
.~d onesbilln, Ga)'. aod Blse u~11 ue. (11M DivIM<m 44). I'rcsc:nled ollbo
Ml lMeting of !be Ameri 111' )'chologie;,J -; tion. BO:lWo.
1996 DistiTlguisbcd CootributiDll 10 Ps}"hologJo' in the PlIblic Intll~. Amori"""
Psychololl.ical A5s""ialioo. tpMl. Cam"", Award
1994 ...de";' Howell Lewis Dlst'~u bll\l L.eCTII,~.l'sl bi tlonu, 0 i.I~',
1993 Myers Center Award for Ibe Study of Hum"" Right< in IIJr Unikd SllLlC~, presented
tD HQ1~ Cri. .: C<m!i'""li'Jg V"wl.""" A,gaimt u,lbi ,.,. A,,<I GOJI MIYI (Herdt &
aerrill. editors). Chbl' """ )'eI$CcIl"'. f(lf'lM Illd)' Dr Ii urn' Rigb~ ill orth
AJ1I<!lic:l, POl'.tie.'il"". AR.
1992 O"ls1arLding A"bic"cmcm Awl!l'll. Committee 00 Lrsbian Wld Gay Conceros.
American PS)'cbologKal Assocrntion,
1992 If",,, Crime CO'rfr<m/mg Viol ~"" A 'ill",' L ~b"ra "" O<J}' M"" (l hlJC
!':lenill. edit,,",) nwned no Oul.1>1ndjog AClld.cmll: Book of r992 b)'('oo,,,,, M"gazille.
Amen'" UII< 'oci"t'"
1991 I"",.,d 1'@1l"",'. Am<!riCllJl Psy ""L"Jli~.I. i.d1lJ\ tid d!@ acic!)' fllr ~
r }' bolollieal Srudy oro.}' 'll.e~bl~Q I Pit D;.'isIQ~ 44.
(OO1,tlnucd}
OTIIE.R AWARD I'D DO OR (colltinutuf)

1989' ... \O<IRI for "Bcsl Contribulion to Eml'i:rical Rrseareb [n p~",,~ P>}'e~o!"llr." rom
P.sythologi'l;> for S""i.1 R!:sJ'lllB,bilit}'. po",sontrd.1 the 3Jllm31ItJl!!Clingof ,h.
Am.n· I"s)"thoIogK,d Asso<±Jtion. ow Orleans. [Sb:rrcd ",Jib Irv 1"8. L J nls and
Pa~HJUID fOr Ort'k. J- Is. & uth (1987)]
1989 Rccipiffil of fir<! aDDual. aid fQt ~()j'1i ,,1:s.1Jed Scl"nti6~ onlributiom ta Lcsbiml
imd Gal' Psychology," Sociot)' for me P'Sl'ch<>JO&ical lv6y or esbim imd Gay
I!.s,,",s (AI' A m.cis.ion 44 . P,...""1l!d ao TJu! 3<1" m..,lioll ohhc Am"tkllJt
Psycl1lolo,gkal ~iation. New Or1eans_
1989 MllSle, Letltm1". Am"O<illl PS)'chalogi<!al AsgnciAlioo.
1984 in "",dm"" M"moriol Rcsl2Kh Award. Associ.ti"" of Lesbian andO.),
P "i 10108" ,!'roocoled.t Ib.c lIllDuul m"mng "ilb. AmcL'iCIIII Psycbological
lo:rloo, TOroDW.
1983 p""tdocrtDJ'lt1 Frllo",~Cp, Va!.. Uojve~.I'l'.
CiKhing ,\"",lId for Outslandiog Orad"ale Stud....!, Ullivl!5il:y of California at
OiIvls.
1979-82 Rq:rrtls' FclJow,.hip!l, UIIi,nr>.ity of California t Da" (10131 fdm:e l\IIlIlJIIl
lIW..rnS)'
1971 Fi:r;1 Pri..e. J,T'. Gull ford' .tioaaL UlI'Ilergmdtllltc: Rc""arcb Competition spollSOJcd
~ Psf hi Hong, oc""y. P'n:scll.d ol1hc: WIm.Illl _"ling" lb. Am.rklllJ
r yel>o!<lg,,,,,l MsOO~U01J. ~ Fro 'leu.
1977 Fir!ll Prize. ebr:Wm PsyeooloBiea[ A..sloci.tion tInd.. ·tn.d '" R"1l!;~1J
Competiti05\..
G""g/lf)".1. H~re Ph..D.lPtljp' In
BmLlOGRAPBY
Books amI EllllI'd VDlum~s
1. Hemc-,G t, &. Bcrrill. (Ed) J990).. i"j"".<: QguJ11S1 tauiU1Ts and guy "!CJ" IssIli!S J r
r~ jJTfU;IJ(;<', ,ar<! p<JJit;), [ pe L I j",ue] Juu,..al of Inl"IJl"',,<>mtI Viol,,~, 5 (3).
2.. HCf'l!1<., G.M. & o..rril~ K. (Ed:l..) (1992). Hale IOTJ, C(jffjnmw,g ,'1.>1''''<'1: ugaJns' l.:sMms gmJ
!/41' ""n. TllQl1!land Oal<.<, ell: S e·lN:uned IIlI Ou~talIdi~S ... eoomti Boo of 1992l>y C/JI/ic.:
Maga-/Il<:, llien III i I}' '0 l~', n; ,p'''''1him MY1'ls Contl."1 wwd for rho Iud)' of
Hu= RlIlhIS in tbe Untied 13res.]
3, Gl'e<'II>', B~ & Herek, G.M. (Ed<.) (1994). l.e.th"'" tJild gpy fJ$).::h<JJop T1J"'JTY. 1"""(:<>"'11, <WI
<:i1"'Cal uppJlctItlOi1J. Thol1Sand o~ , A: . e PublicatioM, [T l:ued InlO ,tl" lion
P1/JO:J{njtlJ :~ I mlLlh> hfJntt).•<!hua!JJr>ffl, p<1b1 i~d by le$eA~~i j TorI> D.O,O.. Za r"03Ua.
19 9.]
4. H.." ., G.M~ &. O=no, B. (Eds.) (1995). .AIDS. Ida "I)'. mid 'O/1"'fJ"I1I)1.' T'Iri! HWepJdem, altd
I~bjmr.r alltj ga,~ ",elL 1bou58J1d DaB, CA; Sage PIJblic.atioos.
.';, llm:k. '. J,,~ J.n &. ;om~', 11., (Ed ) (l996 CAllin "c: Scrual o.-Ien/olron an til
m,{ilw • Cbk"llO;' ni."...i\)' of ChiC<! j) I'~ss.
6. lioh!k, G.M. (Ed.) (1998). S"RmtJ and JenrtH ",JenllJIi(m..' Uffcf<!n4J."rJi'rg P"'luJ~ (j~/1'" k,hI(ln:J,
ga,' '_r, and bl$~.f. Thonsand 0 '. CA: '. I'ubll .i n.. [fr:IMlnl...t llll ltlll: iall by Tho
St3lC MLJllkil'1!l EDt~risc Book Adv«t:is.ing Agene)', Kfulrko., Uk",i""" 2002.]
7. Horck, GM. (Ed.) (1999)• .4!DSarJlht,JPNu rn the U'niledSlules [Special I.sue]. ~riellJl
Ikhav'oral Sciontist, f ] (7}.
8. Hom. G.M. (in prepu.rn.lion).. &yond hc",ruphobia:-VIfd"nlanJing jlll"o./ stigma and prejrtdlce
Chicllgo: Vniv.... tty" CbKago !'mos.
P~rs ill A(.'.!1de:mi }IJlJl'Ira4'
I. Elatb,,,,,is, G., W<mg, M., &. Horck, G.M. (1983). A 5tr1.Inio for domil1lllllCo: RclatiQ1lal
com,nonicadon paMffils in [clovi5[on dmm.a.. COfflllfJIltJca,io/t Q'Ial'Ie.r{v, j J. 148-155.
1. Hclcl::, G~"1.. (1984). Beyond "oomopbobia··, A social P'YCholngical prn;po:<:ti•• 011 allitnd•• l"ward
lesbians and g;J}' me JoNnJaI of t/utn(}If rll"Jity. J(J(11l , 1·2: I. [R"printcd In J.P. DcCc=1I (Ed,),
htMJwrr, boll""", ,,,,tf
blgrJ ,1Icm",plrohia irlil~rr:rk<1ll r>r;j /y. N"w York: H;u:rinJlloo r'mk 1'=5,
19~ • Re"riolO<! ,OIld III lolecl - ,o.ill1p$ykologiW sy...puID..'l p;\ fgl lI<ll\Jnin~~1i1 bomolJl.--
111 V H. f"llesdal (Ed. j, HomDftl Fcrtk!N'11let' ug fatJiJ. 0.111, Narwa)', Solum Farlag, I 90.1
3. Hc... 1t, a.M. (1984 . Artitll<lesIDW1IId lc.biam aJld gO}' mom: A mCIDNIII3I}'lic .tud~. JoruM/of
ffm"o.r""rJiJJil}'. JO(lfl ,39-51. lRoprinted in J.P. DeCecco (Ed.). BIH/re".. halle". (md bigoJs:
IfDIIJophob'il i"A'MrICW' .rodeI)'. New York: HlIlfingtlln P",k Press, 1985.J
4. 1 Lorek, G. (1986 , On 1tc1...,,,,,XuaJ mas<:ulinil)': Some l"Sychical toII!Icquenccs II lb. socinl
construeuon or goodc:r ond "",na1itY. Amcric.ml lJohorNl'<>ro/ &icnlisl. ~J/. 56]-5·7, [Rcpnu[cd in.; (n)
i .. , Kimmel (Ed.), <-hangi~g """,. IV <firi'Xlim.. I", ~r;h u" ~1..n ali<I '""s<:l'lfnl/y, Tbou.lUid
Oab. CA: • g". (b) L,. ·-.n>e1S D., l'mmel (ds).l's ",r,""~i"",p=pct<;lj1''''<IIll 'bi<nl'(»K1
g<ty ma/" cxpcri 1<", N~'" Yottc~ ol,ombl3 Uni. lly Press,]
$, Berek. a. t. (1986). Thc in.1nlrncn13litY of attitude., Toward a nrofuoctiom lli. tb""J}'. Joru/wlof
Soddl,., "<!S, /] 2}, 99·1I~.
6. Crosby, f.J .• & Hercl:.. G,M. (1~1I6). IaJcs~'mp.tby ,..ith lbe .iluBti"" "{'"",,men; Doc. pc"",nJL1
experience make ~ di .~n...,7 JartTr>Q{ ufSoc;"t lI....." '" 41(2), 55-66.
Papu.r (COrltilllJ.t!tl)
7. H"rek, G.M. (1986). Tb~ ,oew",}, holo8.\' afl",mopl",bia, Tow"'" I Pr1>l:lit<1l1JJcOJ)'.~· ill 0
LJw and Soc",l Chtmgt!, m-934.u.
8. He"'k, G."''''' 1987). Rdigjoos oric.llIti"" IlJJd prejudice: A cornporison or I'3da! od ",1L'Il 3ll'll es,
l'erwPJalily lJlJd Soda! Pl)'ClloloflJl BJ/l1e/JII., / J, 56-65.
9. lIerd;. O.M" Janis. tL" & Huth, P. (198 7). Decision-making du.riog int<m.alionaJ eri esc fs qU3lity
of pro<cs> r,eJall:d 10 outcome" J<Jr1mf11 ofCDlrflici Re50luooPJ. 31. 203-226
10, Hcrek. G. . 1987), C;ln fum;t[ons be mcasur<:d? new """,.,.,wve DO tbc functional ppraoc b to
'lliludo , S«jall'",~,,,,,ogy Q'oarli rly. SQ, lS5-J03.
Il. He",1<, G.M~ . GIt!fI~ E- . (1988 , Nl 'I'Jdemi~ of sllgmll; I'l.bl", ,.....,iun, 10 AIIJ .. AI mo."
p. 'C"~"I4I.'I, 4J,88("891-
l2,. He"'-1<, G.M. (1988). Hetc","",x Is' IIl1itude:s t""'l1m li!:Sbi:lM and 83;' n....: C"rrellileS ~nd IlOOOe:r
diffcrmccs.. TI'"JurlrPJalufS ~J'e!t, 15.151-477.
l3. Horc:k. O. t. (1989~, Hate mmc•• gainstlesbtnm Ilnd g;ay rn<n: 1E5Ilcs fa. r.:scsreli Ilnd policy.
;t""",imn I'syehofogi'r.'. 44.948-955. [Reprinted in .R. Dy.... it S. DOftaldson (Eds.),
tlrIl.l"u<!JUll1lity- Di5en' ~1raJian. uiminolog)', oMlhe I"",. NcwYort:: Garl....d., 1992.]
14. He",k. Cl.M., J""I~, I.L~ &. liul ,P. (1939 .Q~ I "ru..dedsionm;aking dwing!he Cuban
m' iJe crisis: Mll"Qr e III W~I.b·s . 5SIDeI .Iemmal ofCcnjlir;1 Rc""lrmo, n.446-4S'9.
15, He",,1<. Cl.M. (1990 . Ci~}1 people ~nd IgVemrnenl •..-it)' cI ",n~o:s; A iill.ti...~c pcmpcl:'11vo.
A__I "" P.'f)',:f'r'I,J1(.... ~ 45, 103S-l00, lR~p,;ttlE<lln J. Ottmley '1" !lll!fet(Ed.,), "umrm
dd.-dapm.w! ad l~ Ii ~ 'J'diI, AQQ1\, MA~ opl'ey. L Q3.J
l6. Horol<, G.M. (1990). be eallJcocl DrSfl~'go}' .iolmoe, Nat... "" cuLtum! :rnd ~}'cll"lesiC'\1
h~~X;5m..lo ...,al oflnJt!.f1Jf!rJtJ~alYlal .5.316-333. [R"if!l'iotoo In; (0) R. Clo.vet &. ...
Myers {E<is.l, A eerlain renor: Helenl.JerlJm. mllllarJrm, .Ia/t!JI(!e and dlanlJ"- Cbie"SQ( AmL'1ic""
Frimds Servi... Commilloe. 1993, (b) L.D. Garnets &. D.C. Kimmel (Eds).I'S}·chalogieat
pcr5fJ'!E'r. • UIII"5bian <mrJ gay Ilfall! /!.llpe:rimrc<."S. New Yort:: CoLumbiA LJaiv <..i!y ,,",ss. -( ) S.L
EU}·."n& A,G. HllIbcrsllldqEds.) (1995), ExploratiOPI.5 ;n social p>}dlofogJ: R :adingf and
"'5" rr;/', cw Y<lik: M<;Qmw·t\iU,]
17. Hotcl:. G.M.• &. I} I~ K. (l9'lO). poeurn""nl, Ill. \<1 ti"matjQI10rl~sl.>1.,;~ 8~~ men'
M1!lbadt>108ica1 1"~5. Jo'inUJ1 ,if ""l~.anill Yi!>t",,,..., 5, 30 I· IS, fR0l'ti"u.d tn G. H."'k &
Il<'rrill (Ed5.)( 1992). Hare crill",. _ Undemt»Jd1JJg rwJ cdp"'''Jln It) ,ami d .1rJl""."
(1'1'_ 270.
2815). Tho"'ilmd Oats., CA: age.]
Ii. HC'''$, G.M., &. Bcrrill, K. (19'lO _ Anti-sa}' viokne.: and. mmtaJ bealul: Selling 311. l!fl<la far
""",.reb. Jo.rmlt1l ofImerpersDJlt11 nolence, J,414-423.
19, Gllfficl!., L. Hel'Ck. G.M_ &. Levy, B. (1990), Vi"leo[c 3nd vietimizal.ian of~bian, and gil}' mC'o:
M I ~11li <;iJIIJ:oO<lllCn k""",! n !nJIl:rpi;m,ng! 1'",1=. J. J66-383. [Roprinlod ia; (i1) G,
lJ~rck &: " DerTi IJ (E ,)(1992), H(1/(' mw '.. 'oJ?frv,i1UIg .iolcn:co ag<Jinsr !f!5~;(J"H,J?d gQY IfHfIJ
(PI'- 207·126'1. Th". _md();ll;!. 1\: SaJle. (h) L.D. (l3mc &. [). ,Kimmel d ).1'. ~hQ/ugic(J!
f"l"¥J"X1l\oe. "~./",1mm tIJ,d ,'l"}' rltal '!<JH',.i~hCi!J. .w Y(>f~' Col~,nbi3 n["e it}'~. ,.]
20. BcrrilJ, K.T" &. Hc",t, G"M. (1990). PrimlllY aoo ...condOI}' victimization in anti-gay h.t< crimcs:
Official TCsp<JIlSC and public; poli"y. JOliF/f{/!" /hfcrpaJio/lal Viole",-",. 5.401-'113,
[Revised iIIld reprinted In G. Hcrek.& • BerrilHE:cb..}(1992). llalfJ am",.' CorifroPJting'"iolcnce
oguin.Jl/csbiuru- 0'''/ goy h' ., (PI'. m· <». IOU""'' ' ;.
c.]
21. lie.« ., G.M., &: GI"q~' .K. (l'l91). AID "",I l~d anJUJtI~ 1" tbe Un;ted tnt· : A preliminary
CC!I1 ~L Ii o. n-",
J/.J~rl7d1 tt[&:x Rc.st!IJJ'Clt, 2 ,99-123.
(cc}PJ,inmxf)
PapfJ'S (CD~till"e4)
22. H~,8:,G.M., Kimm~l. D.C~ hm'lltl. FI~ Me 1~0. G.J:i. ([991).....oldmg hclcrnsCJl:isl bias in
'0
p.yd>oll>gi..... _.- . A",~";""" l':J)",}wlo/<;isr, ~6, 9 1-96 , [Reprinl<:d Dioellric5 N"""s. 11 (5),
SptciaJ 'Suppletntmt, 2·19. (Publisl",d by th~ C~tl1l f"r Fl"m!ln l:liuetbi ,-l Monnsh Um.ersity,
Ausll'lllin)]
23. Herel" G.M. {L991}. Myms s.bcMn sl!"Xml ori..nmtlon; A mwyer' g.. rd'~ 1.0 S e~-I seieoc<: = b .
law rmd Se:rJ/a1ily, ILl. 133-112.
24, HeroOk, G.M., Capillmio. J.I'. (1993). Public reactioos to AIDS io die Unil~d. tlws: A second
dc:c;lIIie 0 sligmJL ARI<,rKQII JONmal ofpublic Heallh, ItJ, 574-577.
25. Herck, O.M. 19'1). ",Yol nrleo.ltllJm. IIIJd mi Iilln}' service; A social s"ienec pcrspcm.". A",~
1'. ',,/rQ1og;51, • S33·S47,
16. H~l1lk, G. ~ 01",,1, E.K. (1993). Inl>!'ll".....n..1""lltD t 3nd ileIcrlJse'IlllIs' 311hucles 10"",«1 gilY
m"", R"""lta""IJI. It.>tional .urvey. 1'IN! Jmit'fIa1" $ R~. ""rcl~ 30,239<:14-4.
27. Herel<, G.M. (1993). DoeummJing p«:judiee .!tw= lesbians and g')' "",non Cllmp"" , Th Y31..
S<:XUDl Orn:ot.a.tion Sun,'ey.JOuma/ ofHOJJl/H.aU/Jlty, 15(4), L$-36.
211. "erek. G.M.. Capitanio. l,P. (1994). Conspi...,ie., OOlItagioo. and compassion: Tru.l and I"'bli
reootioos to AlDS.AlDS £dllea/IOIf amJ Pri!VeJJt'Ort, 6,3{j'l-377.
2,9, Berck. " c..pitiiJJi", J,P. (1995). BI ~k b",~",""x,",Is' .,uiludes lowMd losbUms aDd G"Y mea
in Lbc: oiled llILcs. 'I1re JU~rn<ll rJ &.!r R<:5C<I.rr;n, 32, 95> I05,
30. Ife",k, G.M~ & C.piallio, 1.1'. (1996).." Q'''~ of m~ b~t ftiemL~, InliO'i/'Oupeon ~ ~ - ~~l~ble
"~"''''' ltd b~tI!.-....c ;u:als' attilUdes 1(>W3J'd gay "ocr, :lfiIIl"",bi, ,P ,,,ralr'l). <11'/d S(J<:",1 p) ""/UXj'
IJlIlld 12, 4 L2..424.
31. He..k, G.M., Gillis, J.R., COg)lO, J.e., '" Oluol, EX. (1997). HIIte erim...ietimi""uon ll!llong
lesbron. gay. and bi:sexunl mlnll.: PreVlllm.:e, pS)lcbologicsl corrda ..... lUld m<1hodological issucs.
.kJlmlu/ of lnler'JH!T3om:rJ Viul<mcll, fl, 195-21 5,
n. HeRk. 0 t, - pi ot",J,I'. (1997). IDS m&mil I<! wntl.C, WLtlJ pe~"ru; whit hI ; ElT«ts of
direct <IDd • i~mOll:l (m1);l( .kJrm,ul vi Appiil:d 8o<;i,,/ 1'>- 't'Jwfvg;l'. 27, 1-3 •
:; • lIeRk. Q,M.. Co J.., Gill;" J.R~ " Glunl., EX. ( [998). ,orrel;nes ofint"fl'l.li7,ed MmophobJ.
in· ""Jrl'R\I1lf!y 3rnl'Ie of fesb i;m~ Md SiI}' 1 len. J"lir",,/ t'.flt (i" und lAMun Medl><ll
Ass«iulirm, 1, t S-23 .
. l!erek, OM., Mimick, l~ Bllrris, S., Ch...ney, M.. Devil><>, P ~ Fullilove, M.T~ Full~ov<, R" Guntl>cr,
H.C~ Levi, J., Mieh e:1s. S., N<l\'iek, A.., Pryor, J Sn)'der. M., Sweeney. T. {I 99'3). AIDS BDd
stigma, A oo.ocepluol &llmewurk 3JJd TCSCarob .geDda.AlDS and PuMic Pa/icyJOunltll, /1,36-47,
35. Heret, O.M., 8< o."IllIoio. J '. (1993), ymbilli. prcjudkc Of e.... of infcttioo A fuo,tiwllIl IDIlIl~:silo
of AIDS-Jtl:ac~51lgm;J mJOD¥ he1e"".'1d!lI!\<lul ,jJiDic ami Applied Soi;i(JII' v;hoJogJ'.10, 2)()'
24 ••
.16. H ",t. OM.• GDB•. J.R.• GLWll E.K., .lewi•• J~ WeltOD, D. & C-lll'l1:!nio, Jj>. 199'3. Cultumlly
...,.i_.
sensitive AIDS oducational .-ideos fur African American lIlJdieoecs: Etfcet5 of SOllrCC. mess"!!,,,
ood rontc ilmwkg" JUllr~1l1 gfColllrmmlt P.y<:.lroJog)',]fJ, 70s- 74 •
17. U.....k, 0 . (l999). IDS aM ~.igm•. Amt!J'iron B",huo{(>TtJ[ St::irWi I, ~2, 110(,,1116. [R.q>rintcd in:
(') M, lomblete1:JJ, (Eds.) 0004). ~ 'lfd1l(!T$' 77te U-rlWlfJy Qod SQtlery ,eatfer, a~, Alb'n
B~<un, (b) p, <lIIT~d (Ed,) (2004), TIN: Sf} ';o!og)' vi I ' tth and iff ",r" ril,,,,1 ~/lW:S (''"e<I.).
New YOik: orlh L min' 1
G..·gory. l ll~rdl. Ph.DiPagr: I j
Faper; (continued)
3. H.re • O.M~ C~pitilnio.J.P. 1999). AIDS sligmll:md ..... un] p",judi"".•4""",ktJ" IJohuv/",.,,1
&"1111/01, '12. l UO-l 14 •
39. Cal'[lmIio, J.P., JI~.~. . ([999), AlD 1C1;rlod stigma<rn<lllttil11des toward injeoting drug us...
amonJ! Bbck and W~ile DIC"o3i. ;/mw"'eu, 0""""/0",,1 &ienrisl,42. 1.1411-1161-
40. Herd<. G.M~ Gillis, I.R., & Caga:o,l. C. (l999). ~~d\QI"'ii"alS""l~~l~~ of""~. cilJJI> .'l'-'l:imi"'l.lioo
IIJlIOng lC5bian, gil}'. mid bisoxlllllllllclts. JttUffl/I1 ofCmfJiullJ"i! mtd CI/~I~1~M.I~g!', 6 • 9 S· Sl.
41. I:lerok. C.M.. & Cspitilnio. J.P. (1999 . Sex diff...ne"" in how fIet~lOS<!"ua.I.llI[nl! b lit 1<:""1 no IIml
P)' men;" vidCllCe from SllCVcy OOIIt"",,, effoct\;. TI,e Jour?II11 ofSex lre.<t!MC .16.3411-360.
41. Hero • G. • (2000). 'The p.y.bo ogy of ,,,,,cal projudl"". Cllyy~m Di,twlwPrJ i11l'!i)"CilQ{oglcaJ
Scu.""", 9,19·22. [RepriJl1cd in J.B. R.1&Kh.r E.Y. H'lmmc.-(Eds.H2004). ell 'elll Di'IN',ID'JJ /"
Sr>d11 Ps -.:/mlogy. Upper . .ddl. River, NJ: l'i::iln:onlPm:rticc Hall.)
43. H.ro~.G. t. (2000). or,1 projlld'. mlgeodc:-r.1Jo 1Jc:lcros" uals'aWlcdeslo"",1d J",blnns and
tDeu .JlITe!? J"wrw! qJSociaJ Jsj "".. ~6 l. :151-266.
1")'
44. Hemk, G. 1:.• Gon1alel.--Rlv.ra, M~ .ad, F.. & Welton. D. {2o«1). AID ,edlJC~,ional videos for g;lY
snd bi>.eJ<JJal ~n, J\ ""Qlal1t 3 .1y i... Jallrlli11 rJ{IIreG<J')! gnd LesOiQJT J~f~iI;<ll, ociulum $(4), 14]-
]53.
4j. Herek. G ~ Ca'PitaJrl", J.P.• &. Wi<f.am1lJ1, 1<..•. (2002 . HIV-Tl'l.auod stigma and Imowlcdg<' mIIlo
n,tcd Slims, f>rcvalern;c lIIId ~nds, 1991-1999. A""";COJ'I.loumai o/Publl HlYIlJh. 9Z), 371-377.
1>. !Iei'd<. G. 1. (2002). (l.ma.r g~p in p"blJ. <>pinion aboot l<:obian. IIJI<l gll)' mcD.. PIJ.blie Op/"ian
(Jr","'",,1y 66(1), -66.
17. H.... t., G~'d_, Cogan, I.C~ & GiRls,l.R. (2QU2}. Vietim ....p"ltol1¢ in bill. ~riml'> cd ~c "al
orienblion.Jo,ml"{ ofSadoJ THues, j8(:!}, 319-339.
48. Herclr-. G. M. (2002). H.ccroscx1lil1,' ailitud"s rowan! bisexual meo and worn"" in "'" nitro Stalos.
.l<JurIIl1lo SeJ; Rrs"aJ'<:h. 39(4 • 254-274.
49. HCR:k. G. M. (W02). . ing IlboclAlOS IIlId stigm;o; A psychologist's ",,""pNtWe. JolmftJi of
Law. ff!fiirine. and bhics. 30(4). 594-601.
O. nerc • G.., .pitilniCl, J.P.• & Ldiumru, K • (2003} tiglIJlL, social rist:. mI.<I beo.llhpolt"y: Publie
lIU i111<!es to",...a HIV IT''e[l Lnee pttlicies .ndtho 0 i I ."",,'merion ofll1ncM. ilaolll, h;yc/roJogy,
21, m· o.
51. HeJcl;, G11'1- (2003). Ev.luat[II.1! lntcrvent"o"slo s[tcr _u.1 oN.om,i"", Mt11>QdoloSi lond m.i I
coosid"''''ti....,.. [PC1>r Camm<fltlry]. Archlt.~ <>fSauIlI &/tlIVwr, L 5), ~)g.4~9. [Ropftl1tL'tl in J.
Drose-her, K.J. Zuc k.,. (Eels.] (1006). EJI.-gU)' res"""d..· A PJ{f/J'~J"R lire SpJ~(!f' SII<{y amJ /1 ",laJluil
10scimCC. religion. poliric;s. and ""lINn!. Bingh;tmIOll, NY: Harrington Pork 1'",...
52. H..c G.M.(2004. B"yQ(ld 4 oomgp hobl..": Thin llliJ about..e 11;01 t1ljlll~ "ad projt!diCl! inlhe
Jwenl}'-fi~t ..ntul'Jo·. Sexuality RI!1~iJJ't:h a~d "...,flJi 1'IJU ~', /(2), 6·24. [Avallable o.
ltttp"'caJObor.uepR>SS.oolldoilpdl7 10.l525Is~p.2004.12.61
53. Hercll;. 0. l\.t.. WidamllO, K.l" &; CaptIJutiD. J. P. (2005). \\'bon '0" eq<Cl1s AIDS: Symbolic stigma
and l>cleroscl<lIIll adlJltg' inacCUlllte beliefs Ilbocl"oxunl1rllnsrni.. loo of AIDS. SOCial r~a!Jleltu • .5 ,
15'-37.
54. Herck., G. M~ & Goozalez. M. (2006). AltitudeS> roword ""~ity among U:5.r""idCliIs of
, ."iC<Ul dco.c<mt. JOII'Nl/ ufScr &.carr"- ~j. 122-135.
55. :f.... k., G. t. (2006). l.ell:3l fl!!(;, "hion g r iIil1\C.$C n:1~lJgll5hips io 1hc: niled Ie"
Sl:iencc p.apc~Ye. Ar,r<r/C</n P.}.:J,o"'gi3,~ 6!, 607·621,
PqpUS (i:Dlm'nu. ~)
56. Re", •(i.M. (200'" ,,"mUng scxlIiIl stigma ."d preJ1Idte,,; T1Jcof)' Mol pr.Jt1.ioc. Joumal ofSoc!al
luI/I!. , 6~, 9'0 .92 •
57. HOICk,O. M. (2007). Scion..,. poIbll polkY,Mdle",l,., "llla" of~:to..e ~_ re!lldonsllipo;,

Amen "Pry ho.llJgir/61, 713-715.
58. Stewurd. W. To, Hmoli;. G, M,. R.ammshn... 1., Bhsrat, 5., Chand)'. S~ Wru.b<ll, J., &: E'J;SU>lJ)d, M. L.
(2008). HIV rel.led stigma: Adopring B thooreticaJ. frnmewod: 0' ase in Imlia. Social!kferlceand
lLt.odieille. If 7. 1225··1235.
59. Hm:k, G. , (2009), Hilt.. mmc:s .... srigm,..relaU:d e.,pcrionOl>s nrnong sexual minority adults in tile
United Slates: PreVlllen... eslimates from.ll n.tiOlla] probability sampLe. JauPnoJ ofIPrti!rPl!I'sGI'IIJ1
Viol"/fCe. 14. 54-74.
60. H..1'Cl, G. M~ Gillis, J .It.. 'C!lgl1J1.', C. (Z009). lotcmalizcd stlgma.llJllong sexual minority lIdult<:
Imlghls wm B s""illl p,)'obologi<rill PCr!pC<'tC Jo",.",,1 ofCo IlIDcling F5) hoJogy. 56, 32-43.
61. H ,G. M, OMO, A. ~ Allen. .]~ Sims, . L. (io I' ). Dedl<lgrdphlc,pI1dlOloglal, IIlld
ocl~1 b ctemtk. "r""lf·ldil",tlfi d I~b; , oy, 0!Id bis"Xu 1:lll!1J in 0 U-S. pt'Cll!<lb'lity pl~
SUI/dill}' ll"udrcf, Wlf1 St>d 1 P!1llcy.
Ch pltr.\'ln Ed/leil Volumes
I. Hen:, M. (1989 . Se.Ull/ Ot\col li~n.lllli~ It'il,ey (Ed.), W"h1'm " Shtdi l~lu\
Vol,ume 1 (pp. 344-346). New Vo:rk: GlI!ClI"""'ct.
2. H"rBk. G,M. (1990). Illncs'•. stigma, and AIDS. In P. C051>l &. G.R. VandenBos (ErlS..),
PsychollJRlrol DJipt!CfJ ofserious .U-Ss (I'P. 103-1 SO). Wasbinglon., DC: Arnl:rican Psycbolo&iClll
~]atioo.
3. Heret, G.M. (1990). Homopbobia. tn W.R. lJ>'lICS {Ed.). Encyclopedia ofHmJflJJe:!:iMlllJ' lPP. 552.-
55S). Now Vor.k: Gariml<l.
4. H"",k. OM. (1991 • Stll!,ltIII. pRjudilO<:. iUld ,'ior<:ncc ogoiJlS.1l~s~jansllrld gJll' men. In J. GoosioRk
& L Wcindcb fEds.),llomoJawlllty; Res ur<h ifflJ'licatio/Trf<x flIIbJicpoJky(pp. 60- 0), cwbury
Purl<., A; S~ge,
5. Ucrek. OM. (1992), s~¢~() loei aJ 1leJc['(l(\c i m ~d ;mliJl~)I ,,1..,1100«': The 80 lal p.)'cboloijy of
hle.DI~ ."d be .lnig.III-G.M. Hell!. • & K.T. B.....m(E<k.) 1fal~ crtWlt<S: CO'J/i'w,tlng wtJJ"""",
fWl1>Lf'l4htdll. tI,,,,,
gay """1 (pp. 149-169). Thoa.:mIl Oaks, CA, Sage. [Rcprimc.d in M"S.
IGmlllol:mll M. Mcs",,", Eds.} (1995). .\fl!o 'r {II",," New yo,k::: Allyn &: Baron]
6. H"re.k. O.M, (1'992, Thcsoci' coolexl oIhate "ri~~ 01 00 ouI1.11rallilclerosc:""m. In
Hc",k. ' K.T. DarlLl ('Ed au' ~""'... CUlrfrfmri'lg "Ia! 'lie<: og<fi,rst WSbilllliI alrl.! 8' ''''''" (PI"
8~ 104), ThoY.!and O' ,. " iO.
7. Here~. G.M. (1992), The c00Ul111l1(1)' lI!'poos.c 1<> iokoc" ill San FrallCi.oo, An inlcrvicw with
W"OIIY J(ltiU L"~l'" OI.ms;t"ad·Ro.... and Jill Tregor. In G.M, H<:,ck, .&: K.T. B<:rl'ill (Eels..) H. r.
,,,1_ C()'Iffr-()nlJ'''R _Id/I!JK» OSII1",.t 1•.•h!tIM "tid R<'!)' ""'" (pp. 24 1-2.58). Thousaod Ollls., CA,
Saga.
8. Harck, a.M,.&: Glunt, E.K. (1993). Public Bttillld.". toWllrd AlDS-cclnu:d issues in Ihc Un' "" Sta ....
In J.B. Pryor &: G.D. Reeder (l;ds•• II", social pS)-dofogy 0 HiY i, tim, (PI" 229-2'61). HillsdnJe.
J; Erlbaum.
q. t1crck, C.M, 1993). On Jlfc ~di<:e I ,.'It'd g3~' peopl" Md ay sec::urit;;' ks, I_ M, 011 ky &
• bcmJl ( ,) Q . <rod ,he mili',,?,;.kM 1Jh ~'4ft;l" ''''''N·. ,I,. (I"i,,,,, S,a'"" (pp. 12 H 40).
Printe'"n. J ~ Princc"'o Mi.,," i.~.
Chapters (I:/mriltll.~d)
10. 1'1 ...... ,(l. . (I g94), ~.inil hetcro:!C.waIs' " titud.,91owanllcsbillR5 and £1I1' men: A l'<!vle "r
Mll'lric-aJ ",.e'l:iICl\ ',h 'he AlL .cille.ln B. 0 ........, & G. ~. Hl:fCt.(Ed•. u5biall and gay
pJyclroJOID': 71JOO1)', re,enrc:h, mul dlrJirtt[ appliCado-u (pp. 26 ·22S). 'tho~d om, CA; Sage
Publication•.
II. He",k. G.M. (1994). Hotefo,exism, hal" rimes, :uull/le 10"'.111 1. sl<lnW, & .Osbml'(flds.)
Violellff <md ,"" llTNf (pp. 89-ll n
TbQ~"1Id 0 : S g. f·ublkollUlls.
L H"ret,. G,M. (1994). Hom05~if)'.Tn RJ. Cor.tin'J (Ed.), rnt: ",lo~~ ofPsychalag}' (2nd edillon,
pp. lSI-ISS}. ewYork Wiley Inl"f'ilCi"fiOl'.
13. I-Lc:<d>. G.M. (1995 . Dev"inping a 1.I>ror<6cal rl'3IDcwQI'k alld ""'lon,l" ra, a res..I.,.:1I propoml. [n 'II,
Pcquegnat & E. tovc, (E.d!i.),. Hi 1.0 ",me a... t:e."frd ~d, g",,,, "l'p[i£:"l,''''' .-l gui<k for
rodal and heJ='ioral rrim'i..~ (pp. 85-91). New YofJ;' Plen~m.
14. Berck. 0.1'04. (19 5). PS)'obologiwIl betero,exism io th" Umled Illt.... In A.R. D'Augelli & C.J.
Pilller>OO 5.) LcsbiQ... gay. mrd h..". lNll !<kNill'". at'm" /heJife:sptm. Psyd,a[oglcal p;!1'specrlvet
(pp. 32J->46). 0 fwd Uoiversity Press.
15. 1'1""'1<, G.M~ Iil. Glunt, E.It. (l'l9S). Id.cnlit}' ,d COlllrn Illl ty amoog g..y od 'bl ""....J moo [0 \Ill:
AIDS era: PrdimiJwy fiudings from lJI" aemm801o M!tl' H(~tIh !lJdy.]11 M. H B.
G=oe (Eds.) AIDS,. idc'lIity. a'M rom", ",Ily: The HJIf 'PJde./tl/<: Mltl Ie: III It,. odttd 8"" ~T1 (pp. 55-
&4). TbOOS3l1d Oaks, CA; Sage Pu&lica1ioll!l.
HI. Herel., G.M. (1!J96). Heterosexism ""d homopbobia. In R.P. CIIbaj &. T.S. Su.in (P..d!<.), TI!IJbtxJk of
IromcucJCwiiry u,rd me,,'al heallf, (pp. 10 I-Ill). W""bioglon, DC: AmcriOllll .... ohinlrlc :~'$.
[Exootpt ",plinmd in M. Adams. W. Blum<:llfel<l, R. Castallrda., H. Hackman, Me P,,-t<:..., &: X.
ZlIJ]lga. JreatJing. for Jj,'t!rJiI}! mJd ~c1aJ jfHl/ce. New York , RolJll"".!:", 20IX!.]
17. HCR O. 1. (19%). Wh)' t~1L il'you'", not ",k...t7 Sclfdi5010SUJ:e, mtcrgroup ooolllc-t. ""d
helo::rtJsl:KIIi1!s' ilitillides w..... iII1Ilcsoiilos ""d g. men. 10 a.M. Herek, 1J. lobe. & R. Carney (E<Is.),
0'11 j"farr;e: S m«rlorhll"tirm mrd Ih~ ",Hi/DrY (pp. 1'>7-125). Chicago: University of Chicago
P"''''
Ill. H""" , G 1. (1'196). Soci.J den ... ""x.",1 QIi"nl tl.<)II, r4 mllitllQ' pefR'tmel poll e)'. 10 G 1-
H<!.d. JJ. ~oIwl, R. CamBY (&b.l. O"II"fim.·~ Semul <Ji'U!irlallrp.od'wi r}", "JIIIlar)' (pp_ -[4)..
Chicago, Universily ofCh[cago 1'in:9s.
19. HeRk, a.M. (1m). Helerose,mal.' illtilud.. lOwMd lesbilll1S WId gily men: Doc:scomins out rna1.a
I ditTe....n",,? In M. Dubennan (Ed.), II qu world: TIN: C~"cr r LesMm muJ Gay SIIIl1fes rl!Olkr
p~.3 J-34'1). o-wVolk: twV.nk Uni'Vcmfy Pn::s5.
10. rr"f"k, G. • (1997). n", HlV ep'Oem; .and p~bl[< :.r'ILl>des 1O",;mlle~bl:;m:1l iliI>' meo In M.P.
~ln",l'. .31<Ii. & J. G~ino'l ( . '.J I" <:ffl)"gl~ II" 'G"J' w""
(l,rd /(:sbiP> c,1(;CJlllllc'
HlYIAlDS. (PI'- 191-_1 R). hica. lr. ~i.ef1lit}' ofClllca.gu P--,e s.
21. Hnd, G.M. (199B). Bad s"ience io the ...... ke ofsti&"'3' A criti'l1le of lite C8l11ffiln 1IfO'll". SlIl'Vey
.tudles. [n G.M. Herek (Ed.), SlIIPflt1 and .•a&a[ Gl'Je.~I",imt. Under.•'(Jlldlng peJtrdice t1S;:UJlt!l
'eslJIQJIj. gay mt?lI" tmd bi.auJu (pp. 223"255). Th'OusaBd Oak!l. CA: .-.g.e Publkatioru..
22. HeRk, a.M. (Iq'nl) The AUitudes Toward Lesbilll1S IIJ]d GIIY ~co scll1c. In CM. Da,'is, W.I-
y",ber. R.Il;,~no 0, O. Clmocl, .L. Oovi.{E&.), lfDndboola c;r;ualil}'--n:Jo'cd memrH''''
(pp_ 92-39~). Thou. and 0 ., C...., Sail" ""bIiC;ll"'ln'.
GregoryM fJerek, t>h.D./Page 16
Chapters (continued)
23. Cogan, J.e., & Herek, G.M. (1998). Stigma. In R.A. Smith (Ed.), The encyclopedia ofAIDS: A
social. political. cultural, and scientific record ofthe HIV epidemic (pp. 466-467). Chicago: Fitzroy
Dearborn.
24. Franklin, K., & Herek, a.M. (1999). Violence toward homosexuals. In L. Kurtz (Ed.),
Encyclopedia ofviolence, peace, and conflict (p. 139-151). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
[Excerpt reprinted in S. Pious, S. (Ed.), Understanding prejudice and discrimination. Boston:
McGraw-Hill, 2003.]
25. Herek, G.M. (2000). Homosexuality. In AE. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofpsychology (pp. 149·
153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association & Oxford University Press.
26. Herek, G.M. (2000). The social construction of attitudes: Functional consensus and divergence in the
US public's reactions to AIDS. In G.R. Maio & J.M. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of
attitudes (pp. 325-364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Herek, G.M. (2001). Homosexuality. In W.E. Craighead & C. NemerofT(Eds.), Corsini
Encyclopedia ofPsychology and Behavioral Science (3rd edition, pp. 683-688). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
28. Herek, G.M. (2004). Homosexuality. In W.E. Craighead & C. Nemeroff(Eds.), Concise Corsini
Encyclopedia ofPsychology and Behavioral Science. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 439-440.
29. Herek, GM., & Belkin, A (2005). Sexual orientation and military service: Prospects for
organizationaJ and individual change in the United States. In T.W. Britt, A.B. Adler, & e.A Castro
(Eds.), Military life: The psychology afserving in peace and combat (Vol. 4: Military culture, pp.
119-142). Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.
30. Herek, G. M., Chopp, R., & Strohl, D. (2007). Sexual stigma: Putting sexual minority health issues
in context. In I. Meyer & M. Northridge (Eds.), The health ofsexual minorities: Public health
perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations (pp. 171-208). New York:
Springer.
31. Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 3, 353-375.
32. Jellison, W. A., & Herek, G. M. (2007). Gay and lesbian studies. In M. Flood, J.K. Gardiner, B.
Pease, & K. Pringle (Eds.), International encyclopedia ofmen and masculinities (pp. 222-226).
London: ROUlledge.
33. Herek, G. M., & Sims, C. (2008). Sexual orientation and violent victimization: Hate crimes and
intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual males in the United States. In R.I. Wolitski, R.
Stall, & R.O. Valdiserri (Eds.), Unequal opportunity: Health disparities among gay and bisexual
men in the United States (pp. 35-71). New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Franklin, K., & Herek, G.M. (2008), Violence toward sexual minorities. In L. Kurtz (Ed.),
Encyclopedia ofviolence, peace, and conflict (2 nd edition, pp. 1920-1929). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
35, Herek, G. M. (2009). Sexual prejudice. In T, Nelson (Ed.). Handbook ofprejudice, stereotyping. and
discrimination (pp. 439-465). New York: Psychology Press.
36. Herek, G. M. (2009). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual
framework. In D. A Hope (Ed.). Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay & hiuxual identities:
The 54th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp, 65-111), New York: Springer.
(continued)
GN'gfJ/?' M Htrd. Pb..D.IP"g. / 7
CItDplUS (CDllfitrUJ!d)
37. H=k. G. M. (2009). S""uol prejudice" [n H.T. Reis -Ie 5Op'" ht!1 (Ed•.), EnqclnpcrJi<1 (J h~"'<Ilr
rdalitm.hips (Vol 3.1'1'. 1483-14116). Thousond Oah, CA: S3a~.
8. Hmk. _ • (£0 Jlicos . Hom....xOHIlil)'. 1m I. Weio"" & W.£ Cmigboad (Ed•. , Car.,IJI.i Ene ",,[oped/..
" r.
'CfJ<JIogy and O"h""ioral Sci 1lCll (41h edition). New York: Joltn Wiley &: SOIlS.
39. "clci:, G.M~ &. Md.@t)iol'e, K. (io Jl ) 110; ttilud... l'o"",rd lesbillllS Imd Gay Meo (ATlO)
.cale. In 1'.0. Fi.her. eM. Da"j., W.l~. Varber, & .. Da\'b ( d ), H",rtfbDrJkof.·l7IJt1lm'-ndated
.......ll.~Tl.'.' (3" E<I.). Oxford, FJtgl.aJ1d: joy"'. 'fl'llll [ • .
Atutraets, km....·s. LeneIT. ami l'ro/e55irJllw Ne Imet'S

I. H rllk, 0.1\.1. (19S0). A DlnlocrtroJ 1'. m.flo - by A. Bl [Review]. Soci f}' or tlw Ad.'tlJIIX""''l1 of
~()d<I1J'~'Ch()J(Jg)' r 11t1li'T. 6 (), .1.
2. H",ek, 0.1\.1. (1981. February). AUimdlOSlo\Wl'd lesbi' .od g"y men, ,\ refined fOolor-WlnJy1i"
proocll. !£R1C R....,," "';" Eilucal"()II.
3. He,ek. 0.1\.1. (11l82 • Um.exual ideology lIJId erone begc1l1OlIY. Nmt<mtJ1 Wi"""" 's AfTffirojX}fog)'
NBW]kllf!T. 6{1). 17·21.
4. lterck, OM, 1983). Ind:ividUlll di ffcr"m:". in attitude. towllfd lesbiaos and. gay men: Soda!
pS1cbologi~ ~ompoocols" ",",~.llOII ideolo[!i.... Dinerl<1lion Ab,/ra,cg hl,ertlatio!ll11, U (10).
3240B. (Umllm,L)' 4ierofLlms rucr No D 840
S. tferek, G.M. (1984). Val~ ~w;fj q.estiom, '.lld IIle lie'" Dledi... &le".;c.116 (4679). Il42.
6. Horclt, a.M. (1985). On dGimg. boiog, arid nol being: PrejUlticc and thE social oon,lnl nan f
sCXllll1it}'.[Rc,iewof Hom I!%rlill A<f>'. AcWn" and ldetlJ:/lJI!!J by L. IIl1Jlcs,s,o•• ond G"Y~ '. GUJI
SelPe. by T. Weinberg]. Jcrmlal ojHomarezlIa/il)'. 11 (1). 135-151.
7. HeIck. .M. 19871.. Tbe so"inl ~ool""l orco e"ido:mi.~. (R...i..... of1hB .ocio1 J",,,,nJlarr, ofAiDS:
"do ,Iwuu..ar'= ,editcd by A.D. Feldman &. T.M. JolmIDn.] C'omt'J'llptR'QryPsye1,ology. J1, 1004-
1009.
3. H!::rei. Gllln~ • (I 89). AID iSliglll' and .oli·g;l)· prejudioe; Publ," reactions to AID •
lel~1'd pol:ic'C8 .. rid i!:~' men in [be U. ,/I.. AlMlr= of/he f1/tl, IJlIiY'ooliono{ Can e.rellC. air AiDS.
ML1ril.ef'~ C~o..t;;.
9. Herd;:. 0.1...1. (l99l). topping Ii]e IDS epidemic. [Re jew of Pri.m.r)' P'~"""'I/"" ,-1.ullS, cdi~d
h)' V.M. Mays,G.W.• Albee, & 5O.F. choeidc'.l C"", mpGU'''''' f.t}'Ch(,I(lf(}', J6. ~9 96-
10. He-l".... O.M_ Bot-Cbllva, Y., CgpitmLio.. J., Amba.OwO)'e,Je, 1..., &. CastBlIcdo, D. (1991). A. social
p.)·thologiCiJI eVlI!lwion orAlDS-<:dlJtlltiollnJ vid""". Ab'/J'actr 0 lhe &\--"mh IRlt!TllIJti()/l{ll
Mfr.ro:n(;<J ""AIDS, <JR""'" [till)',
II. H"",,". O.M. & ClJll-illmio, J.P. (1991). ReactiOl1S til AIDS in lI1e Unilcd Stll:[C"~ A..., 121
ps)''''''''logtcal anal)'Sis. Jlb.-IrOEU ojth. Fir:sl [Iflernalvmai ConfIYeJr(J 0" Blop.<ychMOC aJ AJpero
of HIV h1frctiOlr. AmsteriWo. n... NelhcrJoods.
I . H.n: ,a.M.. Capitaoio,J.J.>. 1992). A1D-' reI led till'" persisls in [be Uniled lIJ!"".Ab.tr....lI:
af/1M! £ig"lh lI,rcrrlaliorrrd COlI/Frena on AiDS Am51....dlml, The Netherlands.
IJ. Hon: . i., C~pitam." J.l'. (1993), Tbe rcliill"ushlp "r 1rIIS1I" publi<; """,lioos to AIIl in tlJc:
UIILled 5' '-"<.Ab.-rrua. of,h ;"," lnl.TnQ/(rmo.'Co,,/r:., OJ,AlD-S flerlin. GClJRa[)y.
14. Borel<, G t~ (lIllis, J.R. GllJJlt,E.K., I.~" ,}, . " Well"'" D . (199 ). Impn>''ing u.. mdibilil)'
of AIDS rom:arioll 3IlI\On.ll Afrlc3ft Arner[cali!i: A e-xpenmt\!ltal .v3IUlt1ion. Ab"fr r4". IDS'
ImpacJ Rklp >oc!t<l oclili IIS~' "I HW /n[.:t:l/()/l. • Ser"",rJ [,lIom,pliO"",1 C()rIf_c.:. Dn 111.OJI,
EJiJlllUld..
Gregory M. Herele, PhD.lPage 18
Abstracts, Comments, Reviews, Newsletters (continued)

J 5. Herek, G.M. (1997). AIDS stigma: A psychosocial perspective. Abstracts of "AIDS' Impact:
Biopsychosocial Aspects ofHIV Infection," Third International Conference. Melbourne, Australia.
16. Herek, G.M. (1998). Sexual prejudice: Understanding heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men. In M. Backstrom (Ed.), Homosexuell i dag: Rapportfilm en konferens am
samhiillsvetenskapligforskning kring homosexualitet [Homosexuality Today] (pp. 31-36).
Kriminologiska institutionen Stockholms universistete [Institute for Criminology, Stockholm
University], Stockholm, Sweden.
17. Herek, G.M. (1998). Hate crimes in the USA: The psychological impact of violence against lesbians
and gay men. In M. Backstrom (Ed.), Homosexuell i dag: Rapportfrlm en Iwnferens om
samhtillsvetenskapligforskning bing homosexualitet [Homosexuality Today] (pp. 71-73).
Kriminologiska institutionen Stockholms universistete [Institute for Criminology, Stockholm
University], Stockholm, Sweden.
18. Herek, G.M., & Capitanio, J.P. (1998). AIDS stigma and HI V-related beliefs in the United States:
Results from a national telephone survey. Conference record [abstracts] ofthe 12'h World AIDS
Conference. Geneva, Switzerland.
19. Steward W.T., Ramakrishna J., Herek G.M., Bharat S., Chandy S., Wrubel J., Huebner D.M., Singh
G., & Ekstrand M.L. (2006). Developing cultural1y-specific AIDS stigma scales for use in India.
Ab.~tracts ofthe XVI International AIDS Conference, Toronto, Canada.
Reports
1. Herek, G.M. (1986, April 3). Sexual orientation and prejudice at Yale: A report on the experiences
oflesbian. gay, and bisexual members ofthe Yale community. Prepared for the Yale Corporation,
New Haven CT.
2. APA Task Force. (1986, November 25). Avoiding heterosexist bias: Guidelinesfor ethical and valid
research Washington, DC; American Psychological Association.
3. Herek, G.M., & AIDS Psychosocial Research Group. (1990). Video AIDS: A catalogfor users of
AIDS educational videos. Davis, CA: Author.
4. Herek, G.M. (1993). Questionnaire development for attitudes toward homosexuality among Army
personnel. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Anny Research Lnstitute.
AIDS educational videos, 2"J edition. Davis, CA: Author.
6. Herek, G.M., & Cogan, J. (1994). AIDS and stigma: A review ofthe scientific literature. Prepared for
the Public Media Center (San Francisco, CA) and the Ford Foundation.
AIDS educational videos, 1994 edition. Focus: Videos for African American audiences. Davis, CA:
Author.
AIDS educational videos, 1995 edition. Focus: Videos for gay/bisexual male audiences. Davis, CA:
Author.
9. Herek, G.M., & AIDS Psychosocial Research Group. (1996). Video AIDS: A catalog for users of
AIDS educational videos. 1996 edition. Focus: Videos for Latino audiences. Davis, CA: Author.
10. Herek, G.M. (1996). Integrating minorities in the u.s. military: An overview ofresearch relevant to
sexual orientation policies. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.
11. Belkin, A., Frank, N., Herck, G.M., Hillman, E.L., Mazur, D.H., & Wilson, BJ. (2009). How to end
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A roadmap ofpolitical, legal, regulatory, and organizational steps to
equal treatment. Santa Barbara, CA: Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
o..,gQlJi ftl lkrd:. Plr.D.l1'ago 19
Articles in P,,"licmiolls1M G~mU'aI udience,r

I. H,,,,, , O.M, (19~9, August I). TIle tyranny oftco I""""."t,
~ it ",ally ill ""r 11 ...' m;m)'
I\rneri= "'" gwy? The Advocate, jJJl, 46-48.
2. Hcrek, GJI't. (1991, QVember 5). Why are !J;Jle ~rimcs agaillsllesblans nnd gnys 00 tI>o ri.o? Th<l
AdwJt:aJt!, p. 106.
3, H",ct;. G.M. 1998, Odobe:r 16)." " "'lld ~lhel]J" ofmlH<ler [OPfIm]. Los A'Jgd.... TiIfli!J, p. A 17.
4. Hcm>k. GM. (2OOG. M;an:h6). A shift from Do.j't .. tu IIetero.e.J<u 1 "-"",,plioD [OPf I)]. San
p. AlS.
Frtlncuro ClJrafllcJe,
S. Hc:rcl;. G. M, {2009, M:JY 31}. Tale a ftJ!i>p, cQ1JC(1j.e bre~11 [ "'iI_ia F'<Jf1Iml. S'acrTmle'Jlo B"".
p,2E.
IntenlU
I. Sa""l r""'Uikm. Scil:rn:-r. """,,,mon,

am!poUcy, World Wide Web .i~. First p<J5t.d ~h S,
1997. bnp,}Jp..yebok>~Y_lJc40.u..~Iw'nIin ""
2. &ryo,rd hO'IIOpIJoltia. Woblog. First posted Septomber I •:2006.
Imp:/l...ww.1>cyoDdlImnopbocie.oomlbfog
Pre 'eMIt/o!tS 111 Pro/l!ss/unw ,weeding
I. ne~k, O.M. ( 1980). Anitudes l{]K!ard ",al" homfJ'se;rJNJ!., "nd lesblW'll. ,4 nf/lled/acrnr """'>""c
opproacJ,. W<:smm I's)'ooological Assoc;.ti",~ Ho""lulu, H."",i i.
2. Hem, O.M, (1\lSI). Gemler........ roles, and altlfwie.. t(1\liard lesbltJm and ",aJ~ ~qif/IJ.'enJll&.
ArnemllJ] P.ycbologi"-i1l Assoctalioe, Los Ange.1M. CA..
3. H~r.J', I.M. (1982). Eroti 'Wi "'OJ QJ'II/ tM i<kOlol:Ji'offreJWo5<'Xrml IN"I!jurJic~. SoutbweslND
An"-'''''i'OIOjik:ll ~~rloJ], S~""''''''l:TJt", CA.
4. Horck. G.M. (1983).. [ndlvjduol diIJ~ III ",,'rrules IrMrmJ lesbians alld gay m<'II, Amcricao
1's)·chologic-a.1 As.ociation. """eim, A.
s. H,,~k. GM. (1984). 'J1fe/WIClImtS of««Itllde.. New '1It!tlJttJ.. jiAr un f>1tl '~ry. Tri· tille SoQal
CognttlOll Group. New York Universil)·.
6. It~l'ek, G.,M. (l98S , Ructm;}"p, frulnopl,oblQ' , 11liJ i5la b.r do",,! to G~'1.. He"''' (em).
Psyc"ologl aJ ,."..~n::1l 01' h"m ph"b"; 1'''''''01"''''' ""d future di""tloos. Americlln
I'l;)·cholo icaJ As,.. ialiaa.l 01.,. ( )'mp<JS1IlD1)
7. H=k. G.1YL (1986). Publ~M 111>1. a/l(>uJ AlDS-' h 1r!fi"l>ltJtkMl "'''mgh In J.H. P.I" (~ir),
P'erooptiOl\S of AIDS. Amen""" l'sychoLoglc31. """"""]3tlnn, W hi" tem, D. lSympusiwnl
8. Hcn:It, O.M. (1987). l.esb".. tmdgoy issues," SCl'alJ/flC p~dlolDgy ili'wr.'tlmjlll? ItMJI'b!llry. III F,
Donmad:. (Chair), [ll","~iog 1hc participation of lIlUlkr-repr"",,ntcd groop. in bo1.!I.he pubIioalioo
Pr\)~ss <iI1d in s<h<llady publ;""rinns. Ensu:m Psy"hologk.ill AssociatioD. Artorgloe, VA.
( ymposium)
9. fl""'li:, OM. (1988). Pilltl~ip' 1 in .. h~rrill (Cbir), Th polifi<:s ° JJ11JS. C.U. ,Y.l'<Jlitical
cien"" Conference, e.. y"tIi.. (l";~1 D""'OISl",.
10. H"",I;:. G.M. (1988). 11,e /'OOJS tJfT/t»;)JJphbbliI. CQBf",C'IICi! on wChl>llB'''K 11.. ".teg<> : 1. bi"-II
i1Dd gay 5ludies,n GmdUIIlc Genrer, City University of New Yo,lr. April ~o. (Ill lled Pl'l!,.,nUIJion)
II. Hel1! , 0 . (1'988). n,· ocfor ]JS}'wlogy o!"·r>t"'.....,, ogaimt I.",bi.m:s mId gay ,,,,,no
In K.
}l.:lm~ (lIDi,), .oIcno;e ~pirm Icsbiilm iIJ1d g~' men.; Towilroe ",s,,",ch agaJda. Amr:rioan
p )'O"OIDsl~ L' D, II GAo ( ymp<>O.iwn)
PiUelllutJolU' at Profe. JOllal Metllillgs (CQntiJllll!d)

12. H~",lt, G~~. (1988). 17f<!.lI/e(JlllngojAIDS fQrl,lf1j~ltlJtals rm'/ ""iet)'. 1n • ~nrin Cbn:iI. CrftiCILI
psy<:h.o1ogi£:l1 ""poet> ar AIOS. j\m~fj P y bol"gi~1 N.ocilloon, AHil:nw, G (Invited
y"'~in)
(3. H~",k, G~\1., & Glnnt,. E.K. (19119). AIDS {1g.1fd pr.d ,mlJ-go 'prejudice:/" hUe r' ·ricm.J w AIDS-
..eliHed pol,di!:$ aNi gay ''''''' in {~ U's_i. FiftlllJl~mlIIional c".. rm:,",~ on A.ID5. MOOl11:at,
Caonda.. (PO.t~f
14. fkrclc, G.M. (19119). 11JlIJ!!jf. rtlgma and AlDS. Tnvitotl I\ta.<r~t 1.~emN, i\tt1ertcan 1'8,Yc~olO3i¢al
As50Cislion, New Orksos.
15. H= . 0 ' ( 19S9 Lesbii>w, 8UJ' '''''II: 'HId goW!rIIIN!lrI Si!Clffl1}' detJ7'U1fce., Amcri<:an
£>s~'<bologiClllAs50t<Lation. New Orl,."ns. (Symposiwn)
16. H~,,"', OM. (1989). T/J~"",I fJ! MU.gpJlvroJ",rei/:,psycJlOr"gic"J. s<Kial. and ""/Iu,,,/ ils""...
wM..m:.l fl."lU. A. P tll orVi"I,," To...."'" Ll:$bl:3l1 ~ ~y Men: R~sc~n;b lssyc:o and
Dr.-ocnoll.:· W"'klohop pon.~d b)' !.be- Ami.lu;i3J 1(lI~Dt B~h;,,'jgr lin 'lI, .uo,,,,llnslilntc
orM~fIlal HuLlh, Bdhe:<da., MD.
I? HC'/n., GM (1990). 'l1J~ prycho{oR,",lJ dm'l!m!mu DfpuMy, rl!dC'ilJ."-p() AIDS. 111 J, Milrt (~,
PkII>Jie reactions to AIDS ill the United StaJr;o. Amel'! mrsyebol0si I N.oelluio,.. BOSIQlI.
(Symposium
18. Heret., GM., Ba'l-Cb;rvlL, Y•• Capitanio, J., Arnba.-O""oyclc. L,& Castlli\cda, D. (199l), A .sodJl{
fJS)vlDlogicall?Vall/Qlia/f ofAl1JS...ducatiOf/llI vfdoos. StYm1h International Conknm"" DO AIDS,
lortn<e., indy. (I'o.["r)
19. Hm:k, O.M.. u,pi D'O, J, P. (1991), JlJS·n:/alord otti/lKk5 a,Ml be/ieft Ulno'lg BlllI:fc Ca/ijbmian.,;
pre 'limi=ry/1Nll1rtJ<Ja1ogic:al d;safs,firm In.....ugIlLlm'· oo(",.cn<;c, io,cm;itywidc AIDS
Resea""h ProgrQ'". (l'-astel')
1D. He1tk, GM (1991). J"w{1!1IO! agtJlMl1"'bimlJ and ""dY rom: A rcr,'I!x.lrd; Ui«!',rtlu /rlr In., /990, 1/\,
1kn:t. (Cbair), Violeflce ogainst Ie.man•• nd Jl"JI mell: ChsU,,"ll'" for ps)'ebologi r. lb. 1990s.
AlMri.,"" PSYCbD!Ogi Assodation. Sal! Fr:mcis o. (lm'iled SympnsLum
21. H"", , 0 1. (1991 • 'Is homu5O!Xuafl/)l ;",;ulnpotlbre ...flh mllirary 'f!IFicel' A "",jew a/socjal rck/fCe
dlau In. MOnD ( ill). ~HOID_Ullllly i> "",omp [lbl~ witl. milililly """;<:~;" Psy<bologiciil
~vllllln,ioD or DoD poll")'. A[m:rl<.... l's~cb"loglea'l N:socilL1;o.... "" fr.rnds<:o. ( )'mposJum)
22. H. ,0 1. (1991 • VIO~ Pgpfn.tl klbiWl.'/ <fJ14 gP "Je.r>: harhrng' frN" linn _ _m IlIvlted
~ 11:111011 for ,res<arcllluo'l hwn Sf'C' red by 1I1e Amerle. ~ ycllologic!!1 tmud' tl II witb 11I~
lloMI wli to (If M~ntal Hoal1lb Ft3DC' O.
13. Hcrck,O.M., Col'nanio, l ..P. (1991). RenrIIr1ltH!> Am" In lhe U/f/red SUIt..,. II $m: "f
p.<;t10010jl!ca! iJ1Jaly.</s Pa]>Cf pTcs.cnted al mo First Imcrnatio:noJ <lofo",,,,,. Q' Bio!"'Ycho,o<:i:t]
Aspect. orH[\/ Inf""lion.. Am51C1dDJII. Tho Nctbortands.
., . n~",k. 0, ., C;\p' 1I'U, ],1'. (1992). AJPs,..,-<:/",od ,,1#1""" and h llcft ImIO.rg A,fri<:D' A",<r~rs
I" aJi/nr",a Tlw""tJ¥'! • OIlr""'n Unl.~l d. lTlS Jt~'''IKh Pr gr.un. (POStel)
::!S. Hcrck, G ~ .. & CltpL1anio.l.l'. (1992). lillergroup 001JIlIt!/ pTI!d./co h",~r<J5aUfJu.· lllt//JtJa l"wilJ'd
gay "'eon. AmeriC3l1 ~ychologicoJ Society, Sam Diogo. (Poster)
26. . piillJJilJ; J.I"•• ' H~n:k. . (1992). Rar;tal di TfJIfC.l:5 (II Q/lillMk.> If7WQrrJ pcrronr ",jIll A1JJ5 and
AiDS porll:iCJ AmcriCilll "" cbologi¢:ll od.,~. "" DiOgD. ~['f)
27, Hel'l!k, G, t~ C piUlllio. J.P. (992). ,flC> rdr/led {1g;"aptJ'S(sIS{" Ihe nUt:(! SM~S. Ei I.. ctl
tAl< [100:101 r.rcDOC n AID • Amstenlarn. T1I.!her (f'QilI~r)
(tvntJ'fr,fa'd)
Pres~11Ia/i(>11.f a/ Profa.<i1>r1al Me-.~ill ',f ((YJ/ltillu d)

23. He"'k. G.M. (1993). nn./I!I!CP ~..fltS/ w.rbiaJlJ and gay melL' He/erMa/.•m, !tale ""R""'. utrd 1M law.
Tmlh AnnullJ Cllln:mont Symposiwn on Applied So~;..1 PsydlOlagy, Claremool., CA. (lr,. iIJ..'<II'''pl!t
29. H.tek. O' t. 19 3). HQ'rw/ (1"" her 'osURI; "llJudic6and ~i~enreogtIlJullejb,alfSmJd fVlY men
in lire Unf1<:<! r4lu COllrC"""':.0II 4 '" Pc:rsISlc""" orHIlIml.~ Lc}·ol. Marymrnmt
UIl;vers.;,y, w. Ang.l~., . (In"iL<:d PiIJl"r)
O. Hen>k, OM" . ~piT3}li.o, 1,1'. (1993), Th· ,cf"'Km:sliip "Ilru51 to tmbliH<!fXricm /0 Al.D8 In fhe
United .'>J"J. lnth hlletr'IIINI>1iilI nf.renCll on OS, &TliB, G..-mllDr. (l'a>1c:r)
31. HD.r&k. G M" & Cllpitanio. l.e. (~993). 77te t.r<l1imli11 S"r, ~. "" A.fDS al:ll1 StW= l'ape' p""'l!:IllOd
at the lIlmo.1 m""liIl~ of th. AmcnC'.ilJl Psychological Associ.Jlio", Tornnlo.
32. H.",t, G.M.. (1993). l'!)",b%gi./s. bigatry,lJJk1 JM ballot b<H: U,!ng .dell/ljk doJlJ ra OOI/ml!r
alfac.ks on g<lJH'k.bioJl rights. In M. Biaggia (Chair), Callolering lLUoon on g.y/1.<l.lMlIII rights: St:ale
mGY<:mc:tUs and rc fereoda. Am"'ritlLll Psydwlogiclll Asso!;;ation, Tmooto. (Symposjwn)
33. He",l, C.M. (I9'JJl. 11 social p'ydrolog;caljJ<'T3pe-<:/i1oe "" 1"'PI~mellti"g"IfOooi5crimilll1JOTjI
military poliC)l. In C. Aod.:n;on (ChaJr).In~U<JltQ~ lesbillll5 and gay m.c:n into 111", .S. milttmy.
Amc:r11OlL1l P:syclJologi As50~i<Ilioo. Toronlo. (1nvilod Symposimn)
, H~rek. a.M., Gillis, J.R.., GI~JI~ E.K" Lewis. J 'iV.ltem, OJ\. (1994), r",p"'lJVing lire: t;Udibtlity
nfAi ~_I"j'HP"lJng.vrl(;ur"I"'iti'/cd1i:J" ~ ajritrl""'n/¢ <',."I""'ir,,,. ill' Im~,;
BiopSy~b<JS(J<;i;I'AspeClS of HJV Inf~ liM. S~ olld li'l1entlltIOll~1 nference. Bn Irlun. E~i!J ad.
(pl#ler)
35. H<:1rk, a.M. (1994). &m"'/IH",,,matltm <HId 11M U.S. "fill/my: Puaillj,: the ""M'
[lTll III cooten In J.
lobe, G. H.rel<. &; R. Camey (CI1:lirs), Glly' lIOd t",biaDs in UJe militmy: Ps)'cbologir;al pc",pcctivn
ao implrm"oliIlg the TJC:W p<>Iicy Am,,<k<I1l Ps"dlologi.<:al """,illlion, L"" AIIgd",. (P",·
"oovc:nJioo work~bop)
36. tl",,,,k, a,M. ( 1994), r"twp"""'rtU c:"ntut:l <md /ott "~"",,a.l.v' a""ud",,' /"",,,,,/l'vbi,,n:s ,,"" ga~' m..".
In L c)'cr& F. Woog (llJI' ,G<l IlJ1d Jesbi in '!lI< 21 Hen(UJY: ~'Uni ""ealC'b end.
Amc:r",ao Psrobolug)...u '''''lulioo,lAo Ig~l.s. (hIY1(c:g Sy~si"m
17. H..n:k, oM. (1994). Yicli",~,,'io" ap~""'= """,mg 1",'Mm. ""II guy""'" In S<1t:T<JfIJt<hJ"- T" G.
H~ ( iv), Me:nMlllOllltIlllod llJl)j.[e.bian./· , Y i timi~OIl: Tlilo '. ,,,,,,arnomo Bate Crime.
tUdy. men""" r )'~hnlo~lcal clalkm. Los Angel . ( yml""'Jum)
38. Glunl, E..I{., H~",.k, G. ~ F<!3d,. F..B~ G illls, R.J~ &: Webb D. (I 9 4 . GaylbiIi!!J:1HIl idi!lIdty,
O?mlOJVff'l)I. tlJIrJ HlVlAJDS risk redurOOn. Paper pA:'5CIIled at lIle lIOI1tJal meeting oI the AmcriCllJl
PsydlJ:1Jogi<>liJ AssadaJion. Los Ao~.IC5.
3~. Gillis., IU. ·H",,,,k. C.M., L""," ,J.t., Ghm~ E.K., 1lIli\l~n. C.. • Barbor, 1\£. (1994). AIDS'i..<*.
lnq""ledgr. and sriK"'<' r;f urtllfITfl Cullfi'rnio {rfa", AmaJCa",. Am.,.' !l'! l'''YdliOl.<>BI,~lIl
A ..ooi:llljM, ...... Angele•. ("o!ller)
4C1. Herck.. GM. (1994). PJtiladelphfo (l)j6Cll!.5ilnt), 10 E. Donnc:n>tc:in(ChlliJ),l'ilm Di5<uso.ion'
PhiJadclphi.a. Sponsored by APA Ad Hoc Comm ittc:'" 1m Films IIDd Olb.. Med ...Ilhe .00 I
OKclin,g atllJe Am"ri<:lIII ?')'~bologi<:iJJ Am",ii1lk>o, Los n,gclc•• (· ilmidiKuo.lon)
I. H.""k. ' (199 • H"t" c:.rUr,,,s· ClJ<rjr()~tihg \,,,,1 agar",v, I""MuFJS fUl(l g<J)' m"n. Pac We
Sooologl...u A&so~l"lion, FtaJ] i~o. (PilPi'1 <Ii l1S~loll qf Herek &. Berrlll [1 J)
2. lIerek. M. ( 1995). ,If, 1"Itte"lJJ"~"'SefJ~()f an'/guy tmd t1J1/1.lJ:slHIJl \l1N'mj~alin". III 0.
Here!< (Ch"ir), The lI""""e~to Halo. CrIJll.!" Study: P:syc/wl.ogkal impart of rqlti-Ie.b.:m :md IllIti-go..
•'ic,irr,ozatl"It. A If,e"; OIl 1'$ hologj I A•• .",iaoon, No VorL (Sl'ml""'"m)
(con/iIfJlt!dl
Pr",~ntllJi"1J1Ji a1 P'rlJf"'i~""al Medh'1:s (clJ"lh.u/!'d)

" Ii<. Kcnok. OM. (1995). HIJ' and AlJ>S risk ",duclion and pS}dlDlogjeoJ jimclNJIlIJlg
43. Ol1l1lt, -
",,,j 6i:>' >Wi ""'PT. AmeJJc' I'oycbologlLtlll A ••oo:inlion, !'Ic,,' York. (Postcrl
<J""mg gay
4~. Doom", M1 He.d, G.M 1 Welton, D.• Fcad, r .. & Medina, G. (1995). C,a 'bts~"l. (Jnd L'"ln()o
ILalbllHIJ1'f.:f',ed AIDS edurotlMD1 videos: A cOlJ[enJ analysu. AmenClllI r~}'c1!o1DIlicaJ !lOci3t!"~,
""" YQT~. (I'o!rtft)
4S. Gill,s. J.R~ Hm:l;. O.,M., Cor;an.l. ,,& Glunl, E..K.. (1995). Forring ope" tile closet dOO7': AtrIludrs
loward ollti,rg. Amerkan Psych<Jlogical Associ31i"". NO'", YmL (POS'N)
46. Cog;;u:I, I:C, ll""'k. OM" ctill... JJl. & GI<UJl• .ILK.. (I99S). Lt11ib'il1llJlldgoypuceprionJ afbody
imago,. ilJI f!Illp'irical'Dr,knlam!ing,. Amcriwm Ps}dIologiul ,,",sociattoD, New York. (Poster)
47. HcrcJc, G t.. (1995 Pl'IjIldire aM .'jolene" o~]f /....bialls and gay mell. Ariz:onlll's}'cllologicill
AssocilltiDO.l'twcniX. (In'Yilcd workslJop)
48. BeRk, G 1 Cog<m, J. ,,&. O.Il~. J. R. (19 6). 1'S)'{;hoIQg~,,1 rorr~o.r 0 hale crmre viclillli;;;,atio.
"m<mg g ""'''. /' O"mi. ,inti lJu~ American Psycbol glc:al OdelY, .ml'rdlOOisC:O. f'<Ji$1erl
49. Hmk, 0, '. C.illi~, J.lt., & <)~"n. J.C. (1996). Hatt! t:J't, ~ ~!tJ$I~)' 'n.,.,. / ,M_ (JntJ
II St!>J1(})S' P.'~djmaglcal ('antequence.r. AJI1fllc•• Psychologieal Associ:lJioll, Tlll:OOlo.. ( yrnptljiuml
50. Hm~k. G. i. (1997). AIDS stig1fla: .4 p5ydwsooial p..'T!pf!clil'i::. AIDS Impact: BiOJ'Sl''Chosoci~1
AsPOCIS ll( HIV Intrelion. Third International Confere"ce. Mclbourn". AuslrnlilL. (1II'ritl:d JMp"r)
51. H"IClk,O • (1997). fft>mrplw>Dw',j bQrrl¢rlnAIDSp.r ....",,,,,,. "",III)' ""d "I 11\[ • in ~ ,
Utm Amc:rk ,!lDd 'he lU'lbbe, , Buildini btld 'e.• t:rtl~.ltl hurde '. H.v"",~ Cuk. ([nvlled
Ilddte ,)
2. fI.Jcl<, G"'1, ([997). s";r.Ui111H'le"IilIW,, I11Id pliMlI:: pm) y. AI".";".:II PS}'dlDlogicaJ Assod3tion.
Chi ago. (I ••itod.wnrd add",•., D;stingllisl>cd Comributioo to Ps)'ehology in the PlJbJjc Intemst,
Ently C rAw.mI).
-,. Her"k. a.M. (1997). SI!!J:Ul1/ prejWi",,: lJ1tderslaf1ding Iret~"l!!J:rUJ:b' lJ/Jillttks 1l''''OJ'tl /~bim,j' lHId
n
~ '" 11. ~Hl)_xW!1I TDag Cm,f"/onc,, [Hmlt05Blialily Tooay], S.1OCkll.ll[m Univcrsi , '
SIQ<:kh<>lm, S.......dm. (lnvikd address)
54. H.""lt, G."I.. (1997}. Hatif <'I'ilJ'1<!3 in II USA.- 1;'" p5JI"hoiogical impacJ oj viol"oce agaimt /e:rbima
and goy !II n. "l-lornoseJ<IJCII 1 o.~~ C"nrcn:m;c [11<111,,"'.....al,1 r""",y1. 't""kh rm Unive.. ily,
lockbo m. '",·edco. IInvited ildd:n:ss)
55. H , G..Iv1.., & Capi!llnio. J.P. (1998). AIDS sJ.lf(mtJ alld HlJ'·r-e)lJ/i!d be1/~fs iPl Jhe UtII,..a St'nres:
ffu.ffi]lJ.fram" 1Til/i')/ldl ,"'ephmti! ~",.,,~}'. World AIDS Conf"mn"",. Ge...'·... S""'1FrIHnd.. (0rIIJ
l'I=nJ31ioo ""d po!rtCr
56. H"nok, O~ (19<J8 SurlOfprcjudi"'; Thc:uxiulJ»)'ClroIogyofhotrJopirobicz:J (I/lti I ImJ e;ris/fts
AmcricllO PS)'cbologiga! AsoocJal!oo, S-;m Frnnc;ij ,(fnvit.d ;I4lIt\<Ss, iL'1y for [1>0 I'sy III 1<:.1
ludy tI F. cl~1 T.sr.~ AI' DMskl~ 9)
57. Flel'! '. 0.\4. 1999), Se>:UilJ prejudll::e:. "Beyond l'irunopbo!ri." Imcmati<>nal Confereo"",, J.n
Fr.illeis-<o. (Inolled .)'.....t!! ddr<:. 0)
58. Hcr,d:, O.M. (1999), A IDS and.tillJlffI 111 lire fll1ited Stales. Worl<.shop on HIWA[DS Stigma in
De-\'e1op'ng Counlrio:s. AB."OCY for lnl=atiooa.l Development, Horizoos Project San FmDCis<:o.
(Invited ~n13ti",,)
W. H"ld:, G.M. (l '1'99). AiDS mId.tigma ill Ille til/lied Sralrs, Confcrence 011 "HJ V. IDS: l....... in
tR:lllnl<:nl .Iigm ami policy," Univcrsi:ly "f cbras ,LiIlQlllo. nov'led address)
(ront)mli!J)
Pl~~eJl/lJti"m IJ1 Prof/!.uional M~tiags (rofl"(ialld)

60. H.rd,. G. • lm)'.lm·"'p<rr301ralC<Nl'oclomJ s=ualpl'i!)'l«ike. 10 G. '-l H (Cllair. 111..
l"'~ h()JOllY of Pl"JudJ~. Amcri¢;lO Psy.h"Jogi<:aJ Society, Demvu. COJor1lOO. (Invited $yft,p(lO>lllm)
61. H.,.,t, a.M. l999).•'Sur"'{ prejr¥dlCe,' Sw"" re.oorc}, "" h~//!TO":J:uols'attlludi!!l taW<V'd le$blfJ1i$
ami Kay ,.,eII.
Ca"f.renc~ oD "New 3pproa¢b to l'C:SCiIIth 0IIl .c.uill orienlJltLoIl, mental hotalth, 3l1d
su!)smn"" bu.",,:' ~tio' Il~stllllle urM.nlal H.alili.llcthesdOl, MlIJ)'land. (Invited J!l"'sontliliom)
62. Ho",t, G.M. (199\1). HaIt? CT. " A frrm' ~'<JT4fur ~iriC</l r' e<lT.". Hale Crim".: Rc:S<m'Ch,
""~icy 8I1d ACliQn. ol\f~"'Dee ,p~ ~l' Ill. oelcly fur the Psychological StOOl' of Social
Issues. Lo$ Angeles, CalJfonli3. (Tn,'iled tej'nol.....mu;rb)
63. He",t., G.M. 19l1'9. Cl'lml/Jal .1ct1.... IUJoofJ woJ. ,""urIl QTi 'nlmw.~; 1M s".r"""",ta linta Crillfe3
SlIlriy. Hate Crim..., R~3!leh, Po-lie)'. 3tld ActlolL Cunf.",,,,,,, spom<>Tcd by Ibe Society ror the
Psj,.,hDlagical Stody of Soci..1I.! SO<$, Los A" et C..[rgmi. (Illvilcd ,"",1I1li1tion)
64. Heret. G,M. (2000). (J,,,,du gop. I" lteti!rOsaJJJili' attlcudl!J tf)l>wd g".I' m"" <rmf k....b.1II . I'aper
prcscmtro.t the ""oual oonfen",cc of1hcl Am"ri""l1 A,.,.",i..tioo for Publio Opilll0p Rt.Cill'¢
Pm'll."", OR.
65. !-lerek, G.M~ OgM, J,e., GlllJ., J. 2OO0) I'SJ'ChQ()gicoJ "",tl-be:i,W mId romll.l1l1l",m ta lesb(mj,
K(1)'. mtd MUlcualld "l"ck". P:lperp"-'lled iii ',M, Ho:rek Choiir), Idenl;l)'. eornrnunil}',.oo wcll·
bein,g amoo lesbian., g3y men, and bis"",,,,1 . Amerl""nhychologil.. .1 sochtrkm. WlIShinl:ton,
oc.
06. Helt'lr, G.M. (2001). ff"'"rost=m/ 1lTlJ.' JllllfJlJ' aJtdth ,j>,numIC~ II! ~IJ<J./ prejr4icr Ammo;;m
Psycbologkal.usociatioll. San FllIJI£iseo. (1 n,ired a.dd • S~iety [or the P yobol gil:'lll tlld)' of
M"" Bnd M.llSCulinit}, AI' A m,. is iJIII 5]),
67. Helt'1L G.M.. -(2001 . The soclalp:tJ'C/rolag)-' of.sdBma. Invimd addles", eonfc"'n"" 00; ~~I"",,th, 14\<',
w>d 111l1n.., righlS: Exploring Ibe COl1MctiOllS," Sp<msQled by the Aml!ric30 SociC'ly 0 r law, M<!didne,
w>d EIhi.c:s. Pbi1a.dclpbill, ,<ptembcr 3D, 200 I.
~,Hen:k, _ ~0021. IJcl<rrose:ci.sm; CI'(JJ'Ql;lerI.stir~ U'lt!S, aJld lltJ1JJ..qlf~J'I<:e:L Arne:rk3ll
r':>yClwwllic;a!I\MO< tioo, ChiclIgo, ( ympooillJJl Chair IIDd Dis<:llS5lIJlt)
69. H"!Ilk, G.M. (1003), G01II:l"l" dJIf-'1'I!.rli;1!$ I" e;rI.tai prr:;ridfa Paper p""",nlcd in T.· Ve5do (Chair.
S"xnsl pro-judi e 2nd h<".,..,.""ism,
Critic31 ooll.id""atJoos on P""'P'"u-~1l and "''llm. 'Odell! (or
Pc.....nnlit), and Social PsyclJolo!n'. La. Ange"es. (lttvi",.d '. mpos[uml
701, tlen:k, ,( 4)0), Wh i6 senralP"'iw!ce docU1Ii,og in II", United Slale.s? TI,e role of
hcl~<rls' jntr:r~ OI",J .<mIaol with fa.bian.r cmtJ gay "'.',,, Paper presented lit tbe llrumal
¢OIuercil~ Oflhe mcrk JU:!;oQati"" ror f>lIb~e Opioiop R<=iI1Ch. Nas bviUe, TN.
71. lI.....k, OM. (2003). lkytmrJ "Jwmaphob'o ". T1rmkirog abaltl uxual .sligma ond fN"!jJtdi()~ ill Ihe
rw",,') rr.<1 "nr~'Jc Inviled ""per p=ontcd ~t die conference. "criucall.mes 10 Amen"""
Sexu3Iity," 'p01WJOO . Ib 11 fl':lod " L~le Un;"e iI}' . donnl °e~.IJIlII1y R.....""'e Cenler. SIIJI
F"""cLSro.
72. H"lek, OM (2005). Mtn"1age "f/uaUlJ!. Coof"",nce ..fIN! Ink1'fl:niorol A .ocinlioo rOr Ibe ~ud)' of
Sexuality. C<lIlun:. and Soeiety, an Fl1UbCisro, CA. {pfectary pan"l: IlIviTed disCiI$S:IlIll)
7 . H~Rl, O.M, (ZOOS). &r:(Jg.~itwJl ofmill'" S6 rela/iom}"p>: palm"", poJicy. Il1Id pu.bl~ "P"''''''.
Paper ~nlcd in ,OmOlo (CIJilIr), Publ!.: poli y and SlIme '"''' relallorWJips: Scienlific
1"'''iP" lives. A~rl, 1'Io}'c.MJogi",,1 ><><i;llill11, W... bingloo, DC, (uwitod paper)
74. Hc,ck. OM.. (201bl. From sadtJ,'!.V law.• to 111iJrrl.ugo equal./)'. P.f}'(:IIt,lngjl ~ NAe 'il I"shli. polICy
",,'ated '0 sexual CNi."tIIllotJ. William Bevan LcOOJl't all Psychol"llY 31ld PlJblic p"n"},, p",.""ted at
the IlJ]nna! ...«linS oHbc Amcric:an Psydw.logLc31 Associatlrm, W~hill \lfl., DC. (lJl1lirod odd, 1
PTt!Sl!lf/1Ition.< at Pro/< w/I/Il Meetlllg (rontlnllt!d)

7S. He",}>. OM. (2006). '17r<! rei IllllUllip ofsllgma /0 psyciwlogiclJl and phy3ical",ell-be/ng In t-pk
with HIYIAIDS. Papt:r I""'.emtd at Ihe UII~~sil)'wlde AIDS RescarclJ Program [nve~1 t •
Cont=nce. San Ma~o. CA.
76. Hcn.-k. OM. (2006). Senal ~)udlo? atriJ lIgmu m r), U"itfXI SID/a. Nebrasl;a Symposium <)"
Motivation, Uni\,.,rsity oor.,h at Ll 010 1Ilvitcd lea=
77. t"",'ant W.T.. Rlltnakrishna1~ HeIclc O.M., Dh t '. C d y . · rubel J_ Hutlmcr D.M, 5i h
G,. & Ek:slr'and M..L. (2006) Dew~l() InR rullI/rail 'JH:C'. "' AIDS stig1rta swier fIr ID III Inti/ . XVl
[0 cromona] AIDS ConfeTCDCt. Toronto, Cllll<lda tef
7 • Hen: ,G . (2006). Er<lI1ica/ing:fi!:CWI1 Jngrlfff tmd p"~ud.O<. Rul"S./iN p~ho{oguiS. Pl.per
prtoKntcd allile biennial coo,'eolioo of1hc ooicty for rhe P$)'ebologl 1 () ill! bSCICs. Long
Bl!~b. (lllvil<:d wmllllioln::ss)
79. HettI<, O.M. (_006). UndJ!T$landmgpuhlic upinlrm" <II wne-sa rdm,mts1ups I" IIIC Unum. Ime .
PIlpcs """entM jn 1. ~ohr { hajr ,I' yehologic;t.I n:se,m;b on leglll ",oogniooo of same~ 1'0 tl
",Jlltionships. American Psyellolollical <1 ,ion. New OrlCiJllS, LA.
110. Hertlt. OM. (2006). StigmtI. CUP/IlK, and PQ ),,,lflglcal UJ,,j phJ'Fl t>/ ... 1/-b<-lng in prop/I! )I'rlh
HIVlAJDS. i'Bpcr pn=nted in J. Stooo (Omir ,Relationship bel"'!!en tigma anel well-bcrng; New
ctors in COJHO& end ban!!.," Arne. an Pi)' hoi 'e:u Ass(J(i lion. New Orleans. LA.
g L. Herd.. OM. (2007). SexrJal prejrJdi~ amJ Inl/!fRlY/uf' C()IrI(lC.r: n.t ",o<kroring oc1ir OJ disc/os",",
and oornlll.rmicariorL Paper prcsellted in Malic Snyder (Cl";r), ex "lI prcjlldice: Conl;nllllics and
diwooJinwtics with other forms {)f prcjudic". Socicr:y for P"""onaliry and S<)Ci~1 Psycbology,
Mempbis. TN,
• orton, A.T.• & IIcn:k, 0, . (20()7), bplo~jr ,rhi! g.nd.~(Mj dW,de: A.rrlll~ ltJ ..tJrrIlranJ~
p,,-npJ In fJ naf{(mal probIShi/i SfJurpl of us athd/s. Sodety for Pcrnmnlil)' JlIId Soc-iaJ ~ choJ"8Y,
Memphis, TN. (po,ter)
m
83. Hell'''' O.M. (2007}. Sl!xualll /!s• • ele",''', and illi(lnu. I'tlper prc'CIlied Mollon Ann GcmsbllCb.cr
(OWr), Stigma from 5<'i"o"", Oroo1' dlfforeDc"" OOt KtOUP delle' .l\DOciau0I11or PisydLologi<:a1
Sdentc. Washingtoo. DC. Pr.-sidential S}mposium: Invited p ",ei!","I}
34. He", G (2007). C~nfronrII!gJCIUIlIprejudice: Theo~ >d p"""l,e". American P$y holOWi
·jalion, an FrnIICISCO, CA. lovited add",ss, Sockl}' for I'ttiollality lind Sial PlY I I to',
M o,,'isiOll 8)
· Herek. O. . (2007). OiSCU5S;lnt 10 A. Loll (Chair), SerualonenlalJon atriJ rn/Il//lT)' sen'j"" C.trre"r
.<t;id and ,11'A p<Jl. ""rial 'mposium.. American Psycho ogical Association, San
Franc1seo.
86. Hctcl<, O~L &: Allen, T J. (:lOO?). When d'le.v hd /WlUua/s' aml_ III, J wI If,;'rrxincs ~mr~
JeDN1l p' '.iwit::e' I'Bpcr prC5"otcd in L. Gamsl$ (Ola 11'). ual prcj~dic:" w.,-group conlal:
American PS}"chological Association, San Ftll1lcOsco.
· "JIm, ., S!letnml, J~ &. HeRt, G 2008). Ln-i!h ofself-l'i!p/'eJu"'lalJon do!Junrjnc
IlivrJ ·mlliw prqw,", 'oclclY for1hc Psychological Stud)' ofSooial ".sues., Cb.icago. IL (Poster)
I"" 1'"JI'!f of
88. He"'k.O.M. _0(8). Beyond "nMl(>p), Ill" ThirJ:ingabnw ~pnjudK:efJ"asrigmD.

Intcrrtlltionll1 Lesbian. Gay, Bi..:xuaI, end T llend<!t I'syc!Jolo Su er Imtllulc, Uni~emly 0
Michig;m. Ann Arbor. (In.itod je-ellln:)
8 . lew rd.. W. T .. He",k. G. MoO, CbilJJ<!y. S_ Siogh. G_ Panickcr. S.• Osmand. T, Ek:suand, .1..
(2008). APOidi'lK duclo5lue ofHIV JliJlUJ 'UUlfJ leatU 10 g>"/!tIler Uolaljfl/l tInd dep~e.1I1I1/1ulilU1lil
IilV-Ir fX1fX1 il'lf1n..awIJ rn SmiJhi!r-/I1ndi". XVO ln1emmooaJ AIDS Confc~e, Mc~ic.) Ciry.
(Posler
lNVlTEDL I: AND .... UJ.i:WQ
•. Wiry ll"ijwJtce, why Ioll!rofIC/!? rtlt! J()CJuI P.fycJl()/Ogy of<,tIlrwi Iovruro Idblo"" ulm guy '" 'n.
Unh·..,.j.ty <)fCalJfomw, D",ors. JW}'~, 19114. (In"tod ""J1"'lU["~1
2. Homop!lobilH. heJerosamm. ami tkp~hoIogl~aJfIJ1lC.fI!:}1L!ofprejudlt:e. AIDS Projoct Hav,,"
(CT).. fclJrnary 7, 1985. (lovil"" I"",to",)
3 p~1rologi<:al/li/,,;tjvlr5 olp,rqllfiice mm tcNeTOll<:e. Barnard College: oteotumhia University, Ntw
Vori;., Maroh 6, IlnI5. (lnvi!J:d colloquium)
4. ffu1/f<Jp1KJbias fPId ""term .isms fh J1$)-c:hoJ(JD <J/prl1jwlir:c (l'm sc;Qta1iry. COl1ilC<:li~ut Culleg.. New
LoodDll. . Mo>y I, 19S5. (l"V" ."".......)
5. fa.tlllj/ be£<eJ' cJec.b/(NI.f. if p Iwfngat'j p/!l'.f~II,'I!.. OOnf....o"" fM:JIJle; N Ham Mre,1II1(\
V"rmom Sup"l'ior Courtl~<ll.",. May 10, 19&5. (Il"ired """"""")
6. StTa,g1J1 /alle ilbvltt Jwrlrvpnobla mid heal/II rIH'/!. Gr::md ROWlds, YaI" Stud...! H""J!h Ce",,,r, Nevi'
Haven, CT. May 21, 1985. (lIl\'it~ Emu",)
7. Slraighl talk aOOJI/ hanlOp/Jobin <md /wolt/J e<IT<!. Fair H.,·m (CT) Comm<Jllity Hcal!l1 Clinic. Jun" 14.
1985. (lovitcd lClCll1J")
l!i t1ri~,,1 pm/JI = Am><iu',q .. ith AlD..<I, Sympo;illm 00 Bi<>ethi<::i1l ~. 'JI"l"S'I=l by DepartmeOI
ofBiology, Yuk Di",asiry. New H~\' ..... De mbCf 12, 198 . (D<S<;UUUIlI)..
9, AJDS, pr;:Jud • and pr)!II, .. C""""e,i<ul1w'tlJ"" S«''''Y, (jul1!Q4'd, cr, "hl'lli!;l)' l\, 19116. (Invil<ld
fl3llo1 dis l"ll)
10. n,. soc/ill pry IllJlogy n ho.mophub '" Toward '" 'rt"al tJJeury. Conf",,,,,,,. on Sex. Politi"". :rnd
mc Law. r:'\\' Yorl: Univcmty Law School Febnau-y ,")"'. 1986. (Invited add,,,,,,,)
11. 111u JlISYf'holog)' homoplIDPU. Q'Id 11rc politi"" oftlllJS. v.1.e Riveroir" Summer l..e<1"'" ecit:&,
ew ffiI 'eD. My 11, 19U. (lnvite<lIe<;IU<e)
12. AI£lrr4.. l(Jwaro le"blan. ami gay lneJj; - .•~."I p$)'C/J"'og~1 apprrxrdJ. 1l1[t!l Col.I"lle.
NQflhamplan, MA~ October 23, L986. (Im'lted lecture
I . SI!!r,td1/1 IlI1 cr.11 tll/IJI.•. Yak Ultivcl'!lity, N.w HaveD. No,'"""be, I~, 1986. {lnvllCd Ie01W'olMld
l"'nol dl.cuufon I
14. TI,. ~ocw.1 prydllJlogy o/hofIJophobia. Pmnsyh'BlIia Slate niverslty, niveISil)' Part. PA. februtu)'
12. 1987. (Invlmd lecture)
15. P,iblic edllCallOlIDO/J'ltt A.IDS; jrmc/ional approach, V.1e URivem!)', ....... lla"en. Allcili. 1987.
(Invil"" colloquilllD)
I . .t ji"";J'",,",1 "pi'mm:n '(J ortJ£utk:. rho =
Neb"" '" Omo!ta. ptil IS 1987. (b"'ited colloq lum)
o-ll""-oj,,,/,o, agail.'t fe.\bJun.. and Ray me". Unl""...Uy of
17. AIDS mid hmnop,hobia; PiI}",llt'5txial ulTflpolitiNl dil1WlIJiOlls 0 1M epidl:1lfic. Unf~lY" Te~ ..
Medi<a\ Cenlcr. JRII lX, SeIJ1"",b"r L8. 1987. (Invlwd 1"..r~)
18. TIJ FJ h<i1"gJ' 'JjhiJmQp/tobla 4 .. ,1£""
pall'Jc.r 01AIDS. H""...foro Colleg., PA. NIlV~",bcr1. 19111.
(lnv1"'" liOClUl<!)
19. Homr>phob;n and Ihe pollli~HJjdiscrlmllltItiorL '1lnd StJ«l YMHA. .w York. N"""mber L4. 1987.
(Iovilod puhlio leoturo)
lil. Pltblic relICtiom laMDS. TelKba-s ('-ollego ofColl1lllbia Unt••"il)', N"", York. December 1, 19S7.
(Ioviloo I_e)
Zl. nJa ~tx!it1/'p.r)-chology <J nomuphohja a'ld ,,,,rr-gaylanri-ksb,t>,, v;a/once, IifornJ~ IIJle Uni onil)'.
F""rno. April 7, 198 . (Invited loc1JllC)
GJ',gOf)l M. H.rd, Ph DJi'<tgi: 1(;
IIt~itfJtI Lecluns anti CQlloqulll (colltinll.E'1l)

22. '~'tlIude.\ t ",ord Je,/rj,ms WId 8t!)' a"", Scrond Tuesdays Lc~~ s"ri... onhe N~w Y k L bi;
ond~. Communil)' C~Il' r. Ap:rill2, 19M. (In"iled publi" lecture)
23. ,~ltJIrides r,,,,'lU'Yf lJ?Jb an.f and gay men: A S()Ck,l pJ 'lr"lugi~lJlapproach. tidwcst Association lilt
the Psycbo£ogical tud)' of Lc.bia:1I and ,1rf'J tlI.u , hr.c~go. !wlII02S. 1911:8. (lo"lted l<>eturc)
2 . Auessrng anjtudc funcrimr>: TIleanfI"aJ and 1m!filodaJog,lcal t.fSU S. ro~liru[ f",[>mOll.ht
'\Me.sS1JJCII1IUl1d R,,,,,,,,,,,b. University of Coufornia, Belkelcy. ov..",bet 19S5. (Invited
oollO<[ulum)
~. AlDS'm"pub!i . IJpiniUII. C ler for AID' Plenot",o ludk". Unive...ity or Cali fom.i ••1 S"'l
Fro . i co. "pri12 , 19 9. (Invllod ooUoqniurn)
26. 711 J'SJ,<;/rulugy ofpnifudf.<;" rmd ilr poIjlios ofA!.VS am} J4fDS-pre nlion. lames 1adi,oll
Unl.'" ,'y,H . onburg, VA. Ootobcr2" 19s~. (Invi1cd 1e<:t""')
2,. Iml/ Ij,k "'01"", ii/<:rim.:: Th I""b",~ aJ><!gay<;lJmmunity. G"vemor's Con ."mee on Vielim
S rvlc . M l'u"lie afe<ty, l\1l.belm, CA. M~~ 29, 1990. (tnvilod IIddrcss)
28. The soeJal fH)odtolr>gyoff"lbllc """"Ion, mAIDS-' Ilf<ml~ Oilloe of AlOS. Saoramc:Jlto. CA.
Decernbet 11, 1990. (In ited eGlloquiwtl)
29'. 1'hl!PS)dlOlogyofprejrwe and tlrepali/kJ t>fAlDS. Marqusttl! Uni..",lly. Mil\\;lul\<!~ I. .\pri.1
17, 199'1 . (invited lecture
'. ""'go/ {OT<:Judi ",,; A sfJ<;wl >i..,r<'c porspct;r.. oh'=it~, or Wi""oosin. ~jJWlWkcc, April LS.
1991. (I"vlled pubtl I.em...,)
31. TI PiJl"JIOlogy oJJmerosexi'Jm. r~ 'lId • 11M ,'JaJeJJu III ,t", <!ttl I'!AiDS. ~ (b<l! Univo:J:$ilj'.
April 26.1991. (lnvited k<:1uR)
32. liar.. crim"s agoillst lI!sbiaru and gay me'II. tnnrord Uruv<l'Slity Law S<bool COil r""'tl iItI Ri.
Crimes. April S. 1992. (Invited add",,,s lI11Id ,,"''''I di.""•• ion)
33, Hett'm/Sexmll: PreJudICe.and VIOlence "gtJ"J<./ li!sbIJlJJ<. and gay men. Ottgom we tJJliV~fflil}'.
nolli&. (ktober 30, 1992. In,il.od I<c~)
~4. l1ate r:rrmiIS <m<J I, I<T"IJS sm. 11•. wr:ial%>",lJologj' of"JoIM"" ogaIIDtl~h.tmumd gay ,,"'...
~nn~)'lvaoi lat. niversity. N vcmbor 1, 1992. (Invited 1e lmc)
lS. SaWJI tNJl!ttthlllm mJd t"" u.s.c l1.,i[l/lUy A $l:JClul .<elena: p<'T)p«/j,,,, on f:II7TC1J/ policy. Meeting or
l>llIionai org:wi:mtioos on 1M U.s. mliit ry p<>licy Oft htllll~~UqJ.i1y iII1d milili!1)' &«Yk"••pOlJ.Mlr<:d
by dul Am"";e",, l' . eholD£.ioal Assoeialioll. 0.."",,,,,,,. 7, 1992, (f ovil«! .. - :III'!~~l
]6. fk,earrh 1m Gay. UMbra.... O!JI1 Bi'Jexuo/ ill...", at llli! UIliw!TSJI)/ afCaliforn.la Panel dis=.ion).
··u.c. ... ~vel)'",b""" U. sY'lemwide ~on.li:rcooo: 011 g)I)'.lesbiillL, and bis"""'ll i.s.sues.~
Uwv~ ity "fCalJ[Qnlia, ~vj febru3ry 13. 1993. (Invited iLddr= Bnd panel discusslon)
37. Heuro/SeXi,,,, PH!jtJdlu and v/()l~nU AAu'nsI le 'b/",u ,muguy"l<ffl. Cali romi~ toile Un! emly.
Loog BOlOCb. Fobrnary 19, 1993. (Invi""" Jeelure)
]8. U.s. /fIiJjitD'YjH!Tst:mnrlpolN:yandgrryfElJple. A soeial JeJ.Ntpi!rspl?Ctil' "" implemo!Jl/illll a
IlOIIlIisuj"rjllaltJFy poli.y. The: Rirnd Corporatioo. S.1nIs M<mi<lll, CA. Y 12, 1993. (Tnvitro ....Iu""
IlJ]d briO!fing)
39. Se • Ii· . a1lrJfD<:I'rJidJ. 1710 II> ~ .md mirliMs IJfsocjuls<;irna' ~rono" IJI/1refrghtfi>TJuhlulIlJ1ld
g")· ...·il right.f. Srml"',;Ym ~os~ by tbI: Amcri~an Ps)o'd>otog'ClII Assoc;jmlloJl. Na '""".1 G.y
L biam Tfc k Po",... aM H"1lWl RJlh' ump:UKJI undo Wash!JIlDn.D • November 5. L993.
crn,'lt'1<lII)l;'ure}
T,n.iud Ledurl!$oml CollDquia (("mti",~W)

40. Helem>" Is' altitriik:J 1014'/1J'd lesbIDlIJ mlti ga}' "'''''. The "fllfl, hYJ1al ~, /l:Z;0'lli1d<:r.J. .. I
'bo fromior. HDmoso~uaJitl" iUld tbc: SocisI Sl'ienC'llS." Coef.rnnoe "I"""'0nod by 11", e"ler for
Le< 1:0" . ~)' lvdic$, al)' Univcmly of Now Yo<k. De<>ml~r 3. 1993.. (In.i1l!d k!cru",),
'II. HO/1JoplwbJa. Ga., j.... bi3'1, ..,11I bj. "~",,I studio semln;lT rDf p.)'dulI!I)' =idml>. lind frllows. UC F
L3nJl!/!y P<lrt.or l~rum.D..,e",bef 1 ,1993, (lnv[l~d 1"'l;!lIno)
42. Hele:rose:J:I,i1L.' DtJiClld~ lfJW(JJ'd le.. bltJ~ ",1(1 gal' ""'''' cm",d!l.<J 11IIII5. Dcpa,mll:R1 "fl'S)'obllltr}',
Uci""'ll)' <>fCaliforniil M&dl J Center, =nID. Aprll6, 1994. (Invitro lectu:rn
43. PnjjJ~ p"bll~ pollC)', und urmlo,i¢nQ.'itlrr, Ii p$}",lmo8isr. persfXX1il'. F",d~ Ho,,"ell
Low DistingWshed Lcc1n,e, !'!Ii CIIl. A"'""i~~11 ~1Io1 gl I . 501.'i~1 0, Los Angol.... .ogl15l,
1994. (Inviled aw,,,d Ic<:m",}
«. Meotal """ltJI tJNl a1lJJ-JesbranlQff"~VvIt:Jlml!.tJ,IoJl. n",.'>a ,,,,,,,,,,,,) Hal" C,ilJN:.> StrMl)' DII}' AJ:eiJ.
Hate Crirnrs Invcslig.to",' As,oeiation. S:m Fnmei~eo. SeJllembet 21, 19, (In lied tcclWl:
45. #.'I""s"";,,ols· altitude.. loward lesbian> aJlll ~ lIIen. Til<! ~mtl<r.t 1')c7X>lhe~ f"t!l:(»I,'~.
CooJl:"'Dcc on "Health Seiem:cs, Helerosexisrn, and H"""'Jlhobi..." llivO-SLty l>fCal i[..,,,,,;:>, ""
Fl1lJICuco. Apri.l22. 1995. Iny; od IIIIdn:ss)
46. HrtJI!NA\l!Lrwfr' tJI1ilUd~ lo_rd l..,.b ...~ ondg<Jl' '" Il,' DoG romin8<ml mQ 0 rJi C""1C't!?
L.."""n"" Berkeley Nati<mnJ LaooftlIDr!e<, Ulllver,;ity oreal ifom' . I}molo)'. OcIObo:r 10. 199 •
(blYilcd lroturo)
47. Hate ~nJlJes; COfifrootmg io-len"" agallls; leJbf/lpjj{ tJNl g<l)I """. 1'100"',' Cl>!leg.., l'h~,i ' 1:,
Oclober 14, 1995, (lnvilttd publie Ie lUre)
411. Hal••nIl'''s; F'Y(JIrol~al'(fSfJDf'5~ 10 VJolCJlEe againsl J",bimu and gaJlI'iLIL Yale Iliv""ity.
Apri129. L990. Invilod le ture
9, [J""""plrobJQ ,,/Idpubtk henllll. NIltiOlJal Lesbian IlIId Ga)' Joornalisl>. Association, Miami.
Seplcmbet 6. t996. (Inviled addre.s)
50, 1f, Ie c>i"'~ and ItOII'/()/lh<lbIP I,q;'~ CJS.r. . dD~ nli·Violencc PrujeCl, ')'deo ,AlIStrulia, JIDl/:.
16,1997. (Invi1.i!d pllblic It!ttllll'!)
5 l. Sf!XlJ(J! p""Judlei!: U'ilerJumding fjetemJ ltal.. ' IIlrudeJ IrYW{Jf'{/ I ,blw.. uYld gay""'" horer
lns!i/ulc and nivor:5<t)' of lJtm:hl, AmstCfdam, Ti,e Ncthc:rlaml.s. October ~7, 1997. 011 lled publi<
INIllre
Sl, TM il'lp(' 10/ vif;Jimi=0rI,' ,Iml'."""'" (l'l': 0 5flCCial ~aso. COlIJ!R.ssional briefing 6ponsored
by tbcJ\mctl""' J'o;),( wllt~~l 'ati"", WMhillglon, 0 • N<J"cmbcr7, 1997. (Invited le"tlll1»
53. Sf!XlJ(Jl 1" ~udl~e. UtdenJn"dmg hilmaplliJbltu mid !II!fO(JJI!:tHNtl. Oop:m:m-"n! or }'d\QlcI '.
Urn,e"ily "rCalifornia, Dnvis, Jil<Il1lI1)' 21, 1998. (Invi,"" l""m",)
54. Sf!XJIal1""jIlQic<: TTl 'psycJJOfIJl,."I' (1 hfl1lfOpiJablas ""d lleierost!.Xu1Jts. Oberlie C.,Rcgo. Oc.,.,moo 5,
1993. (Invited lcttlll"C)
55, H,,{ "rjr"",,' «glli/llfll biMS <mdg" "'c~. olumb," Uni~ily HlY Gcntcr.1>1Joy .20.1999. (GtIlDd
Rounds) CT",'irod 10<:10"')
56, Ha'" crime,.- bcmW .",.. !WI t:NJe",..lftm. ,i"",..,.... *"'. Mcri<:<m i II Llbol1.l.. nlun Biennial
I>nference, S8I\ Dj ". JUlie 25, 1999, (Tn,iled t>ddress}
57. Si!XlJalpr.eJutifce'1I the lJlIJled SllHes. Sml FllmCisoo PIlbHo LihrsIy. Oo.ober 16, 1.999. (lnvi.ed
pub!i lectOR: nnd pllOd disc....ion
5 Sex:llIJI pre)wice. Dcp;m:m.cDI of Ps)'<lwlogy, Uni,elSily of Ca]ifomw.. San1l!. CrllZ. April 19, 2000.
(lo,'ited ~olllJ<lulllm)
[nvul!d Ll!£1:lUa alld Coll0'lwa (colltinu4d)

5 • AJJ)S and sfig",o iIT r;", U"irc,,<l tol!'S. Cent"'" rar DisCIl5C Control 3lId PY"v clltton. Allonto, JImO 9,
mo. (In"ilcd addrcn)
O. AiDS and .lig_ .rr I"" Umtw SlaI"s. orum <m "Sti[!lll'l' g",aking hrough the Misinformation,"
$p'.!Ql;oled by AID A~on und lite Cenlers Dr Di.= Control and Prev mOR. Vt'ashillg1on DC.
J<Ir1I1i1f)' 26, 200 I. (IJJvilcd addR:ss)
61. '{1 • ,",MI." '<'DIgl fJT' Wi"" Illvilcd I~"", f<>T Ibe serio:s. ~Uom_~ ...lity OIld Chri.ti... Fwlh;
N~' Vi loons [ur 'hc c'"" ~," .~ If)' OIl lIl1o.. d.cnommiitiooal !:TUup of 24 .blllC.b."", in
!lie '!Il r.lll¢i co Bay ~ . _n ""sw. M,rrd. 22, 200 I.
62. St"''''.l' t!U'11J,sd·.ftw-."'IdJ·'lTg 1!J("i""ml~JIidla!.. wnmerlll,l[Jvlc n u.Ll1y, ""c>I)' "nd
Hl!3llh. Program ill e U3llt)' lUdies, 3n FrlIlJ w..o Illle Uni mlIY, 1une 2S, 200 I. (Inviu,d lea"",)
63. "L,,.. altd 1Lc Lh'i!. ,. S3=m.,ntD o:J>d Yolo Cowrties W",Ld AIDS Da. C.,mm"",omtiolJ. Doe.';n.Mr
5 2D02. (Inv[1ed keyool" address)
64. S<romljJ1l!judic<J. ummcr Inslilulc on S~oW[ty. Socioty and Health. Progmm in Se~uaIi1y ludi"".
Sao 1'rnn<£.<:o IlIle UniV1:JS'IY. Juh' n. 2003. (Invited !""'tLlfO)
6 • s.:.:ur,rl fP"1«rr1"1",,,, .\rl~m: <ImJ rhe II"'I/: HlfW I#x.:.iaJ .<mil I> """/wlli ro.''''' lr "an i, Uf11I p"hli"
J!<lllc)t. Je3tllJe Hcrbefger L""t1:II'I! c:ri", 00 "CqmmuBiutiOR, ulm"" a.1d COli ["1," Hu Do~s
~bool ofH~1D3" COli nic3tio;m,!\r~ tale i"e il)'. CJelOber9, 200:l.(I~,·ile.lIe<;IUl\!}
66. FlJtIi!:J,jor prleI//iood? Shifting Vlltlcan letJChiltllJ 0It fJmJtOJeJCl/tJ1I'ry. N tiooa! Sex lily R"""UI'CB
C'~l.l, S<rn f",nei$J>o 1lI1l! Univ.rsity, F~b"""ary 23,2006. ([nvitO<! 3dd""5lU1d p3Ml dilloll$.iQn)
67. 8e}",td "ho.wJOphobla".. Wlral ,ocla/ ,.,fellCe lela W' allow Jur",1 fN"!lwJ•.ce. M"''1""ne University.
April 20, 2006. (l "vilrd I.,.,.....,)
68. V.YOltslrllCtillg "LOB ".. So<;jal. psy.-ha/ogi<:at alld drn.ograpf,ic dif!<.,.",IOOS ll,m ,iWJilllrirje:. Q!lJO/fg
I....bim... gay III PI; hl.>=l ....m· rll1d his"""'" "".~ III a US ""11m 1prob<lblJity ampl"
I'lcpartJncnl of PlI)"'ho.IOl!1. Univor:>llY of iilifoml... 1M, I\nge 0$. May~. 2006. (tn.iled colloquium)
69. D~sr_"ng "L(;/j" FIlII,/ltI?"Y ft()m .. It Ii, ally l'ep'<'S£I1I(fIl1't Sffmple q[ em I r;rf,t(J1'lry"",111 .
cp:!rttt1enl of PsydID10llY, Uni ...ity of Q1J ifomia, Iletke:l.y. Aprill, 200"1. (In yitl'd coli quium
pon'Qred by the: OJ,·.... ;I}' Smdcnl Allianee
70. D~O/1SlrUC,illg ·WB"· FIN!IllfP' /rom 0 'laliulloJ/y repl'l!.e17lali" If<mJpJ" ofSf!Dl<I/ !lJiJl~ily 00,111••
lIa)' Area Sexuali!}' Rc......'h Scmm.. Scmcs. ~ nmclsw talc Univ=lty. I\pril 26, 20 7.
(Invited I.,<turl')
71. Ide1lJily. rdoJj<mli~fps. <md "(!!?Ira "",UI'g U. .• ,'al ...'",,'it)' adlIl "1 Min <ily ,\"Iho
Rese.m,h T""m. ~ Fnmcl••o. Mo}' 1.2007. (lnvlted LO"lun:)
n. SlIgmrJ. prqr4ito<. (l",} Squdl rlri",,'WI('nl. onliD~in M~I¢al Ed>J<:: .tloo <'Dnfet~i;(:' on Se~",,1
Ori""",I]O" .",.. C,,;,,~r IdcnIll}' !II Pl'im31)'C:!ft!, 00:r\0!f31 Med iei"", ",lid elltlll Health" ue I),wi.
Medkal CenJer, J""mlly 17,2009. (Keynote [(:"ture)
PIJlintif[~' R"~"p()nses to Dcfclldanl-fu1ervcnors First et of Interrogatories
Plaintiff·Intervenor s Responses lO DefertdJnJt-TnlerVellOr" First ~1 of Interrogatories.
Defcmoont·!nlervel:lors· Molion for um.mary Judg,m.etll
California afe choots Coalitioll, a !'lace to I...elll'll; COflsequen es of HaT1l.."'QK'Il1 Based on

Actual or Pcrcei"'Cd . Kua] Orientation and Gend on-Conformity antI leps for Making
t;:hools afcr (Available III bl:lp:lfwww,casa:fcschool:s.org).
HatzenIJuchl.cr. M.L., KC}'cs, K.M. &. Hasin, D, . (in press) tate-level polid sand p. chtillric
murEJidit in I.G B popul.al.i.OIlS, American Jou:rnal of Pubtk Health. (Confid ntial Until
PUblished] .
Hatzenbueh1er. M. L. (in press . e impact 0 institutional discrimination on psychiatric

disorders in LGB populations: A prospective slUdy. American 10urnal ofPuhlic He~lth.
[Confidential Until Pub!" ·hed].
IIni.2enbuehler, Ml., Nolen-J-ioekserna, S. & Dl.Jvidiu, U. [m press) How D<Jcs ti,gma "Get
Under !he Skin'/" The Mediatinl: Role of tlnotioll Re." utaHon. r~ycho lo~#al Sciellce.
[ onfidcmial Until J'ublisbed].
Russall, S. r., Ta1JnlIgc, "Laub. C.• &. Mank . (2009). The Economic Costs ofButll'in. a.t
cl1ool. (Caufomill are chooLs Coolition Rcsclln,h Brief o. S). :m Francisco CA: California
Safe Schools Coal ilion.
Russell., S. T.• M Gu[~e. J.K., Laub C. & Manke, K (2006). HanJ55JlJlmt in eh 01 Basal on
Actual or Perceived Se.'l:ua! OrieD1ation: Prevalence and Consequences (Califclmia afe cllool'
o.-ilition Research Brief o. 2. an Francisco, A: alitomia "aCe chools CoaHuolL
We~lEd. $HfQrnia. }-te.llth. Kids u e)'. A 'regid¢d 'alifomia Data echnical Report, 2006-
2007 2007-2008 econdary (available at
http://www.wt8ttd.orgfesfchkslprintldDCsfchks_sarnplrn:porn.html).





20
22 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
23 PROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’S
24 MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED
Plaintiff-Intervenor, WITNESS RYAN KENDALL
25
v. Date: January 15, 2010
26 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
27 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G.
[PROPOSED] ORDER –

3
8 Defendants,
9 and

13 RENEWAL,
15
16 Additional Counsel for Defendants-Intervenors
17
20
25
26
27
28
1 Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J.
2 Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, and Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign Committee
3 ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal, have demonstrated that Plaintiff-
4 Intervenor’s proposed witness Ryan Kendall should be excluded from testifying at trial. Therefore,
5 the Court finds that Defendants-Intervenors’ Motion to Exclude Ryan Kendall should be
6 GRANTED.
7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Ryan Kendall is excluded from testifying at trial in
8 this case.
10 Date:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 CHIEF JUDGE VAUGHN R. WALKER
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

3:09-cv-02292 #461

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3:09-cv-02292 #461

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3:09-cv-02292 #461

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document461 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 5

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

18 * Admitted pro hac vice

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN KENDALL –

1 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

10 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

24 * Admitted pro hac vice

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN KENDALL –

1 TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

5 Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez,

6 and Mark A. Jansson, and Proposition 8 Campaign Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a

8 and County of San Francisco’s proposed witness Ryan Kendall.

9 Defendant-Intervenors respectfully request an order excluding Ryan Kendall’s testimony

10 from this case.

18 Defendant-Intervenors promptly alerted Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor of their desire to

22 At that January 7, 2010, deposition, Defendant-Intervenors learned of Mr. Kendall’s tenuous

2 Mr. Kendall’s testimony should be excluded from trial; it is irrelevant, unnecessarily

10 for Mr. Kendall to testify about either of these matters.

19 or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

20 Mr. Kendall’s testimony about sexual orientation discrimination will be unnecessarily

25 sexual orientation discrimination. And one of Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s experts,

1 to the facts involved in case or even the State of California.

8 positive experience with conversion therapy.

18 In conclusion, Defendant-Intervenors request that proposed witness Ryan Kendall be

19 excluded from testifying in this case.

21 Dated: January 14, 2010

1 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO

12 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

16 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,

18 * Admitted pro hac vice

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN

1 General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his

10 PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS

16 Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors

24 * Admitted pro hac vice

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED WITNESS RYAN

1 I, James A. Campbell, attorney for Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents Dennis

3 Committee ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal, have personal

5 testify to these facts under oath:

7 284, Defendant-Intervenors asked Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors for an opportunity to depose

10 Kendall could be made available for deposition was January 7, 2010.

11 3) Exhibit B to Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents and

14 4) Exhibit C to Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Proponents and

17 Plaintiff-Intervenor in this case.

19 is true and correct.

20 Executed on January 14, 2010, at San Francisco, California.

Expert Report of Gregory M. Herek, P I D .

Perry v. Sch warzenegger

I I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs as a consultant in connection with

1 1. In connection with my anticipated testimony in this action, I may use portions of

Summary of Ultimate Conclusions

IL The Nature of Scientific Evidence