Our brothers and sisters are blazing a trail for civil equality with the advent of same-sex marriage in California this week. For those of us who don't live in the Golden State or Massachusetts (or other states with civil unions or domestic partnerships) recognition of our committed relationships may seem like a long way off.
Here in North Carolina we have no statewide anti-discrimination laws for LGBTs, no hate crimes protections, not even anti-bullying laws (though the has a fair chance of passing this time around). The only reference to marriage is the perennial filing of an into the General Assembly.
We can be envious of those states that are moving farther and faster, but the gains move all of us one step closer to full equality, and our movement strengthens with that momentum. Even the opposition knows that , according to a new CBS poll.
- 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry (this is the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004, up from 21 percent).
- 60 percent believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions.
- 50 percent of Republicans are against either of these options.
- 40 percent in the western portion of the U.S. favor marriage equality.
- The groups most in favor of marriage equality — those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.
The poll also found that Americans living in the South are least likely to support marriage equality, so moving that ball forward on all LGBT rights issues in more conservative parts of the country presents a challenge. The momentum is with us because more and more of us are choosing to live lives out of the closet — winning hearts and minds are won when LGBTs are visible. For instance, how on earth is the marriage of long-time gay rights advocates going to destroy society?
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (left) with Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to be legally married at City Hall on June 16, 2008. (Photo by Brad Luna, Human Rights Campaign).
How does it destroy family values when Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick for his lesbian daughter who recently came out?
The fact is, our society is more stable when we can recognize these relationships — it makes us a stronger nation.
What we have to be prepared to do in less-hospitable states is to educate our potential straight allies. Friends, coworkers, and neighbors may in fact support anti-discrimination legislation and hate crimes measures, and approve of repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We cannot, however, assume potential allies know enough to be good advocates comfortable with the issues when discussing them with peers who may disagree. A couple of years ago, my wife and I had a conversation with an otherwise politically informed woman who thought:
- Same sex marriage was legal in several states;
- That we could marry in Massachusetts (out of state same-sex couples cannot if their home state doesn't recognize gay marriages);
- States aren't successfully passing marriage amendments (every one that has made it to the ballot has passed so far except in Arizona).
But there shouldn't be any laughter about the above because a recent survey conducted at Hunter College found that most gays and lesbians
94 percent of respondents knew whether same-sex marriage was legal in their state, 78 percent knew the U.S. Constitution does not ban same-sex marriage, 82 percent knew they could not serve openly in the military and 59 percent knew there’s no federal law that bars workers from being fired based on their sexual orientation.
Only 38 percent of gay men and lesbians were able to answer all four questions on those topics correctly.
That's why resources like the ACLU's are so valuable. It puts information at your fingertips to help inform yourself — and those essential allies who are needed to move the civil rights ball forward. Its online toolkit will help frame the issues for specific audiences — so you can reach out and effectively communicate with your elected officials, neighbors, schools, and employers.
I know there are a lot of us out there in Red State America ready to get busy and work for our rights, bolstered by the spectacular gains we've seen in other states.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.