LGBT parenting and LGBT rights in the U.S. reposted in bold and italicized small print

 



LGBT parenting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Greek letter "lambda"
Part of a series on
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights



           


Laws around the world ·
 Recognition of relationships ·
 Same-sex marriage ·
 LGBT parenting (LGBT adoption) ·
 Military service ·
 Immigration issues ·
 Violence against LGBT people ·
 Legal aspects of transsexualism ·
 LGBT rights organizations ·
 Opposition
 


           


Portal icon LGBT portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
LGBT parenting refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people raising up one or more children as parents or foster care parents. This includes: children raised by same-sex couples (same-sex parenting), children raised by single LGBT parents, and children raised by an opposite-sex couple where at least one partner is LGBT.[1]
LGBT people can become parents through various means including current or former relationships, coparenting, adoption, donor insemination, and surrogacy.[2]
Scientific research consistently shows that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as those reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Forms of LGBT parenting 1.1 Adoption 1.1.1 Judgements
1.2 Surrogacy
1.3 Insemination
1.4 Developing methods
2 Statistics
3 Research 3.1 Methodology
3.2 Consensus
3.3 Sexual orientation and gender role
3.4 Homophobia and transphobia
3.5 Other
3.6 Misrepresentation by opponents
4 Other aspects 4.1 Marriage
4.2 Trans parenting
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Forms of LGBT parenting[edit]

 

 Male same-sex couple with a child.
LGBT people can become parents through various means including current or former relationships, coparenting, adoption, foster care, donor insemination, and surrogacy.[2] A gay man, a lesbian, or a transgender person who transitions later in life may have children within an opposite-sex relationship, such as a mixed-orientation marriage, for various reasons.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
Some children do not know they have an LGBT parent; coming out issues vary and some parents may never reveal to their children that they identify as LGBT. Accordingly, how children respond to their LGBT parent(s) coming out has little to do with their sexual orientation or gender identification of choice, but rather with how either parent responds to acts of coming out; i.e. whether there is dissolution of parental partnerships or rather if parents maintain a healthy, open, and communicative relationship after coming out or during transition in the case of trans parents.[17][18][19]
Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, for example, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home.[20] As of 2005, an estimated 270,313 children in the United States live in households headed by same-sex couples.[21]

 

 Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples around the world:
  Joint adoption allowed1
  Second-parent adoption allowed2
  No laws allowing adoption by same-sex couples
1In Finland a law will come into force in 2017.
2In Estonia a law will come into force in 2016.
Adoption[edit]
Main article: LGBT adoption
Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in a dozen countries and in some regions of USA, Australia and Mexico.
Judgements[edit]
In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[22][23]
In 2010 a Florida court declared that reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children, therefore the Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise[24]
Surrogacy[edit]
Main article: Surrogacy
Some gay couples, especially male coupled, decide to have a surrogate pregnancy. A surrogate is a woman carrying an egg fertilised by sperm of one of the men. Some women become surrogates for money, others for humanitarian reasons or both.[25]

 

 Schematic illustration of an AI procedure
Insemination[edit]
Insemination is a method used mostly by lesbian couples. It is when a partner is fertilised with donor sperm injected through a syringe. Some men donate sperm for humanitarian reasons, others for money or both. In some countries the donor can choose to be anonymous (for example in Spain) and in others he cannot have his identity withheld (United Kingdom).
Developing methods[edit]
Currently scientists conduct research on alternative types of human parenthood which can aid same-sex couples to have children.[26] One of the possibilities is obtaining sperm from skin stem cells.[27]
Statistics[edit]
According to US Census Snapshot published in December 2007, same-sex couples with children have significantly fewer economic resources and significantly lower rates of home ownership than heterosexual married couples.[21]
According to a Survey conducted in Poland by the Polish Academy of Sciences on 3000 people, 9% of LGBT people (c. 50 000 people) living in the country were parents.[28] Canadian census in 2011 had similar conclusions to these of the Polish study - 9.4% of Canadian gay couples were bringing up children.[29]
Research[edit]

Family law
Family
 
Marriage and other
 equivalent or similar unions and status
Marriage ·
 Types of marriages
 Prenuptial agreement ·
 Cohabitation
 Civil union ·
 Domestic partnership
 
Validity of marriages
Void and Voidable marriages ·
 Annulment
 
Dissolution of marriages
Divorce ·
 Adultery ·
 Grounds for divorce ·
 No-fault divorce ·
 Matrimonial Causes Act ·
 Legal separation ·
 Alimony ·
 Parenting plan ·
 Residence (UK (E.W. and NI))
 Parental rights ·
 Custody Evaluator (U.S.) ·
 Parenting coordinator (U.S.)
 
Other issues
Paternity ·
 Legitimacy ·
 Child custody
 Legal guardian ·
 Adoption ·
 Child support
 Contact & Visitation
 CAFCASS (UK (E.W.))
 Grandparent visitation
 U.N. Rights of the Child ·
 Children's rights
 Emancipation ·
 Foster care ·
 Ward
 Parental child abduction
 
Private international law
Private international law ·
 Divorce ·
 Marriage ·
 Hague Convention (adoption) ·
 International child abduction
 Hague Convention (child abduction)
 
The Family and the Criminal Code
 (or Criminal Law)
Paternity fraud ·
 Bigamy
 CPS (U.S.) ·
 Child abuse
 Domestic violence ·
 Incest ·
 Child-selling
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
In the United States, studies on the effect of gay and lesbian parenting on children were first conducted in the 1970s, and expanded through the 1980s in the context of increasing numbers of gay and lesbian parents seeking legal custody of their biological children.[30] The widespread pattern of children being raised from infancy in two-parent gay or lesbian homes is relatively recent.
Methodology[edit]
Studies of LGBT parenting have sometimes suffered from small and/or non-random samples and inability to implement all possible controls, due to the small LGBT parenting population and to cultural and social obstacles to identifying as an LGBT parent.
A 1993 review published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage identified fourteen studies addressing the effects of LGBT parenting on children. The review concluded that all of the studies lacked external validity and that therefore: "The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children reared by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."[31]
Fitzgerald's 1999 analysis explained some methodological difficulties:

Many of these studies suffer from similar limitations and weaknesses, with the main obstacle being the difficulty in acquiring representative, random samples on a virtually invisible population. Many lesbian and gay parents are not open about their sexual orientation due to real fears of discrimination, homophobia, and threats of losing custody of their children. Those who do participate in this type of research are usually relatively open about their homosexuality and, therefore, may bias the research towards a particular group of gay and lesbian parents.
Because of the inevitable use of convenience samples, sample sizes are usually very small and the majority of the research participants end up looking quite homogeneous—e.g. white, middle-class, urban, and well-educated. Another pattern is the wide discrepancy between the number of studies conducted with children of gay fathers and those with lesbian mothers...
Another potential factor of importance is the possibility of social desirability bias when research subjects respond in ways that present themselves and their families in the most desirable light possible. Such a phenomenon does seem possible due to the desire of this population to offset and reverse negative images and discrimination. Consequently, the findings of these studies may be patterned by self-presentation bias.[30]
According to a 2001 review of 21 studies by Stacey and Biblarz published in American Sociological Review: "[R]esearchers lack reliable data on the number and location of lesbigay parents with children in the general population, there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of such families. Most studies rely on small-scale, snowball and convenience samples drawn primarily from personal and community networks or agencies. Most research to date has been conducted on white lesbian mothers who are comparatively educated, mature, and reside in relatively progressive urban centers, most often in California or the Northeastern states."[32]
In more recent studies, many of these issues have been resolved due to factors such as the changing social climate for LGBT people.
Herek's paper in American Psychologist stated:

The overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. More recent research has reported data from probability and community-based convenience samples, has used more rigorous assessment techniques, and has been published in highly respected and widely cited developmental psychology journals, including Child Development and Developmental Psychology. Data are increasingly available from prospective studies. In addition, whereas early study samples consisted mainly of children originally born into heterosexual relationships that subsequently dissolved when one parent came out as gay or lesbian, recent samples are more likely to include children conceived within a same-sex relationship or adopted in infancy by a same-sex couple. Thus, they are less likely to confound the effects of having a sexual minority parent with the consequences of divorce.[7]
In a 2009 affidavit filed in the case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Michael Lamb, a professor of psychology and head of Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University, stated:

The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. The studies specific to same-sex parenting were published in leading journals in the field of child and adolescent development, such as Child Development, published by the Society for Research in Child Development, Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. Most of the studies appeared in these (or similar) rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions."[33]
Gartrell and Bos's 25-year longitudinal study, published 2010, was limited to mothers who sought donor insemination and who may have been more motivated than mothers in other circumstances.[34] Gartrell and Bos note that the study's limitations included utilizing a non-random sample, and the lesbian group and control group were not matched for race or area of residence. The study was supported by grants from the Gill Foundation, the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Horizons Foundation, and the Roy Scrivner Fund of the American Psychological Foundation.[35]
Michael J. Rosenfeld, associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, wrote in a 2010 study published in Demography that "[A] critique of the literature—that the sample sizes of the studies are too small to allow for statistically powerful tests—continues to be relevant." Rosenfeld's study, "the first to use large-sample nationally representative data," found that children of same-sex couples demonstrated normal outcomes in school. "The core finding here," reports the study," offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much-debated, small-sample studies."[36]
According to a 2005 brief by the American Psychological Association:

In summary, research on diversity among families with lesbian and gay parents and on the potential effects of such diversity on children is still sparse (Martin, 1993, 1998; Patterson, 1995b, 2000, 2001, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Data on children of parents who identify as bisexual are still not available, and information about children of non-White lesbian or gay parents is hard to find (but see Wainright et al., 2004, for a racially diverse sample)... However, the existing data are still limited, and any conclusions must be seen as tentative... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Although studies of adolescent and young adult offspring of lesbian and gay parents are available (e.g., Gershon et al., 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Wainright et al., 2004), relatively few studies have focused on the offspring of lesbian or gay parents during adolescence or adulthood.[37]
In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated:

Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood. If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage children’s psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful.[5]
Consensus[edit]
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][33][38] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[39] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[40]
Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[4][33] Since the end of the 1980s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[33]
Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: "Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights".[41] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[42] the American Psychological Association,[43] the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,[44] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[45] the National Association of Social Workers,[46] the Child Welfare League of America,[47] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[48] and Canadian Psychological Association.[49] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."[7]
Studies and analyses include Bridget Fitzgerald's 1999 analysis of the research on gay and lesbian parenting, published in Marriage and Family Review, which found that the available studies generally concluded that "the sexual orientation of parents is not an effective or important predictor of successful childhood development"[30] and Gregory M. Herek's 2006 analysis in American Psychologist, which said: "Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment. Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers. Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men."[7] Additionally, some fear that children will inherit their parent’s gender dysphoria or alternate mental health issues in the case of trans parent, yet there is research that suggests “an absence of evidence that children raised by transgendered parents have a greater chance of experiencing […] development issues than raised by non-transgender parents” and further clinical research shows that “children of gender-variant parents do not develop gender dysphoria or mental diseases” due to their parents’ diagnosis with gender identity disorder [19]
In June 2010, the results of a 25-year ongoing longitudinal study by Nanette Gartrell of the University of California and Henny Bos of the University of Amsterdam were released. Gartrell and Bos studied 78 children conceived through donor insemination and raised by lesbian mothers. Mothers were interviewed and given clinical questionnaires during pregnancy and when their children were 2, 5, 10, and 17 years of age. In the abstract of the report, the authors stated: "According to their mothers' reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach's normative sample of American youth."[35]
Analysis of extensive social science literature into the question of children's psychological outcomes of being raised by same-sex parents by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 2013 concluded that "there is now strong evidence that same-sex parented families constitute supportive environments in which to raise children" and that with regard to lesbian parenting "...clear benefits appear to exist with regard to: the quality of parenting children experience in comparison to their peers parented in heterosexual couple families; children's and young adults' greater tolerance of sexual and gender diversity; and gender flexibility displayed by children, particularly sons."[50]
Sexual orientation and gender role[edit]
A number of studies have examined whether the children of lesbian and gay parents are themselves more likely to identify as lesbian and gay. In a 2001 review of 21 studies, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz found that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender, sexual preferences and behavior, suggesting that an environment of heterosexism has hampered scientific inquiry in the area. Their findings indicate that the children with lesbian or gay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and are more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships, which may be partly due to genetic or family socialization processes or "contextual effects," even though children raised by same-sex couples are not more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay and most of them identify as heterosexual.[32] According to US Census, 80% of the children being raised by same-sex couples in US are their biological children.[51] When it comes to family socialization processes and "contextual effects," Stacey and Biblarz point out that children with such parents are disproportionately more likely to grow up in relatively more tolerant school, neighborhood, and social contexts, which are less heterosexist.[32]
A 2005 review by Charlotte J. Patterson for the American Psychological Association found that the available data did not suggest higher rates of homosexuality among the children of lesbian or gay parents.[37] Herek's 2006 review describes the available data on the point as limited.[7] Stacey and Biblarz and Herek stress that the sexual orientation and gender identification of children is of limited relevance to discussions of parental fitness or policies based on the same. In a 2010 review comparing single-father families with other family types, Stacey and Biblarz state, "We know very little yet about how parents influence the development of their children's sexual identities or how these intersect with gender."[8]
Children of LGBT parents do not have any differences in their gender role behaviors in comparison to those observed in heterosexual and/or cisgender family structures.[52]
Homophobia and transphobia[edit]
Children may struggle with negative attitudes about their parents from the harassment they may encounter by living in society.[53]
Other[edit]
Stephen Hicks, a reader in health and social care at the University of Salford[54] questions the value of trying to establish that lesbian or gay parents are defective or suitable. He argues such positions are flawed because they are informed by ideologies that either oppose or support such families.[55] In Hicks' view:

Instead of asking whether gay parenting is bad for kids, I think we should ask how contemporary discourses of sexuality maintain the very idea that lesbian and gay families are essentially different and, indeed, deficient. But, in order to ask this, I think that we need a wider range of research into lesbian and gay parenting... More work of this sort will help us to ask more complex questions about forms of parenting that continue to offer some novel and challenging approaches to family life.[55]
Misrepresentation by opponents[edit]
In a 2006 statement the Canadian Psychological Association released an updated statement on their 2003 and 2005 conclusions, saying, "The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some persons and institutions are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values."[3] Several professional organizations have noted that studies which opponents of LGBT parenting claim as evidence that same-sex couples are unfit parents do not in fact address same-sex parenting, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the effects of the sexes or sexual orientations of parents. Rather, these studies, which only sampled heterosexual parents, found that it was better for children to be raised by two parents instead of one, and/or that the divorce or death of a parent had a negative effect on children.[3][56] In Perry v. Brown, in which Judge Vaughn Walker found that the available studies on stepchildren, which opponents of same-sex marriage cited to support their position that it is best for a child to be raised by its biological mother and father, do not isolate "the genetic relationship between a parent and a child as a variable to be tested" and only compare "children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents," and thus "compare various family structures and do not emphasize biology."[57] Perry also cited studies showing that "adopted children or children conceived using sperm or egg donors are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by their biological parents."[57]
Gregory M. Herek noted that "empirical research can't reconcile disputes about core values, but it is very good at addressing questions of fact. Policy debates will be impoverished if this important source of knowledge is simply dismissed as a 'he said, she said' squabble."[58]
Other aspects[edit]
Marriage[edit]
Main articles: Same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage and the family
Same-sex parenting is often raised as an issue in debates about the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Trans parenting[edit]
There is little to no visibility or public support through pregnancy and parenting resources directed towards trans parents.[19][59]
While “once gay and lesbian parents attain parenthood status[…] they almost never lose it” this is not the case for trans parents, as seen with the cases of Suzanne Daly (1983) and Martha Boyd (2007), two trans women who both had their parental rights, with regard to biological children, terminated on the basis of their diagnosis of gender identity disorder and their trans status. They were perceived to have abandoned their role as "fathers" through their MTF transition, and were perceived to have acted selfishly in putting their own sexual/identity needs before the wellbeing of their children. These cases are amongst many legal custody battles fought by trans parents whereby U.S. courts have completely overlooked defendants suitability as "parents" as opposed to "mothers" or "fathers," roles that are heavily gendered and come with strict societal understandings of normative parental behaviour.[60] In the case of trans individuals who desire to become parents and to be legally recognized as mothers or fathers of their children, courts often refuse to legally acknowledge such roles because of biological discrimination. An example of this is the X, Y and Z vs. U.K case, whereby X, a trans man who had been in a stable relationship with Y, a biological woman who gave birth to Z through artificial insemination through which X was always present, was denied the right to be listed as Z's father on their birth certificate due to the fact that they did not directly inseminate Y.[61]
Recently, Canada has started acknowledging trans parental rights in terms of custody arrangements and of legal recognition of parental status. In 2001, Leslie (formerly Howard) Forester was permitted to retain custody of her daughter after her ex-partner filed for sole custody on the basis of Leslie's transition. The courts ruled that “the applicant’s transsexuality, in itself, without further evidence, would not constitute a material change in circumstances, nor would it be considered a negative factor in custody determination," marking a landmark case in family law whereby "a person’s transsexuality is irrelevant on its own as a factor in his or her ability to be a good parent"[62] Additionally, Jay Wallace, a resident trans-man from Toronto, Canada, “was permitted to identify as Stanley’s father on the province of Ontario’s Statement of Live Birth Form," marking a decoupling of genetics and bio-sex in relation to parental roles.[63]
See also[edit]
Social
Coparenting
LGBT adoption
LGBT adoption in Europe
Same-sex marriage and the family
Surrogacy
Third party reproduction
Medical:
Artificial insemination
Assisted reproductive technology
In vitro fertilisation
Sperm donation
Research:
New Family Structures Study: Published by Mark Regnerus in 2012, this study was widely discredited by researchers, and which claimed to show that children of gay and lesbian parents were adversely affected by their upbringing by parents in same-sex relationships.[64]
Regional:
Same-sex adoption in Brazil
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents
2.^ Jump up to: a b Berkowitz, D & Marsiglio, W (2007). Gay Men: Negotiating Procreative, Father, and Family Identities. Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (May 2007): 366–381
3.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association" (PDF). 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-04-19.
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families – A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-05.
5.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support of plaintiff-appellees
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM et al. (July 2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics 118 (1): 349–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279. PMID 16818585.
7.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Herek GM (September 2006). "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective" (PDF). The American Psychologist 61 (6): 607–21. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607. PMID 16953748.
8.^ Jump up to: a b c How Does the Gender of Parents Matter
9.^ Jump up to: a b Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill C38 by the Canadian Psychological Association – June 2, 2005.
10.Jump up ^ Butler, Katy (March 7, 2006). "Many Couples Must Negotiate Terms of 'Brokeback' Marriages". New York Times.
11.Jump up ^ Gay Men from Heterosexual Marriages: Attitudes, Behaviors, Childhood Experiences, and Reasons for Marriage
12.Jump up ^ Stack, Peggy Fletcher (August 5, 2006), "Gay, Mormon, married", The Salt Lake Tribune
13.Jump up ^ Moore, Carrie A. (March 30, 2007). "Gay LDS men detail challenges". Deseret Morning News.
14.Jump up ^ Bozett, Frederick W. (1987). "The Heterosexually Married Gay and Lesbian Parent". Gay and Lesbian Parents. New York: Praeger. p. 138. ISBN 0-275-92541-2.
15.Jump up ^ Büntzly G (1993). "Gay fathers in straight marriages". Journal of Homosexuality 24 (3–4): 107–14. doi:10.1300/J082v24n03_07. PMID 8505530.
16.Jump up ^ The Married Lesbian
17.Jump up ^ Dunne EJ (1987). "Helping gay fathers come out to their children". Journal of Homosexuality 14 (1–2): 213–22. doi:10.1300/J082v14n01_16. PMID 3655343.
18.Jump up ^ A Family Matter: When a Spouse Comes Out as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual
19.^ Jump up to: a b c Faccio, Elena, Bordin, Elena, & Cipolletta, Sabina (2013). Transsexual Parenthood and New Role Assumptions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 15 (No. 9), p. 1055-1070.
20.Jump up ^ APA Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents & Children, American Psychological Association, July 28 & 30, 2004. Retrieved on 04-06-2007.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Williams Institute: Census Snapshot – United States
22.Jump up ^ EMRK is for the LGBT adoption[dead link]
23.Jump up ^ Euronews: Gleichgeschlechtliche Adoptiveltern – Gerichtshof rügt Frankreich (German)[dead link]
24.Jump up ^ http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf
25.Jump up ^ http://www.ihr.com/infertility/surrogacy/gay-parent-through-surrogacy.html
26.Jump up ^ http://www.gizmag.com/possibility-of-genetic-children-from-same-sex-couples/17228/
27.Jump up ^ http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/stem-cells-same-sex-reproduction.html
28.Jump up ^ http://rodzinyzwyboru.pl/publikacje-i-raporty/
29.Jump up ^ http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.pdf
30.^ Jump up to: a b c Bridget Fitzgerald, "Children of lesbian and gay parents: A review of the literature," Marriage and Family Review, 1999, Volume 29, Number 1, pages 57–75.
31.Jump up ^ Belcastro et al. (1993). "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning". Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 20 (1–2): 105–122. doi:10.1300/J087v20n01_06.
32.^ Jump up to: a b c Stacey J, Biblarz TJ (2001). "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" (PDF). American Sociological Review 66 (2): 159–183. doi:10.2307/2657413. "If these young adults raised by lesbian mothers were more open to a broad range of sexual possibilities, they were not statistically more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay.....Children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships. This may be partly due to genetic and family socialization processes, but what sociologists refer to as "contextual effects" not yet investigated by psychologists may also be important...even though children of lesbian and gay parents appear to express a significant increase in homoeroticism, the majority of all children nonetheless identify as heterosexual, as most theories across the essentialistt" to "social constructionist" spectrum seem (perhaps too hastily) to expect."
33.^ Jump up to: a b c d Michael Lamb, Affidavit – United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (2009)
34.Jump up ^ Discover magazine "Same-Sex Parents Do No Harm". January 2, 2011 edition, p. 77
35.^ Jump up to: a b Gartrell N, Bos H (2010). "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents". Pediatrics 126 (1): 28–36. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3153.
36.Jump up ^ Michael J. Rosenfeld, M. J. (2010). "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School". Demography 47 (3): 755–775. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0112. PMC 3000058. PMID 20879687. edit preprint
37.^ Jump up to: a b American Psychological Association Lesbian & Gay Parenting
38.Jump up ^ Canadian Psychological Association: Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
39.Jump up ^ Escobar, Samantha (July 27, 2013). "Children of Gay Couples Impacted By Parents' Relationship But Not Sexual Orientation: Study". Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
40.Jump up ^ "Gay and Lesbian Parents". American Academy Of Pediatrics. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
41.Jump up ^ cited in Cooper & Cates, 2006, p. 36; citation available on http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
42.Jump up ^ Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples (archived from [1])
43.Jump up ^ Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children
44.Jump up ^ [2][dead link]
45.Jump up ^ Position Statement on Gay and Lesbian Parenting
46.Jump up ^ Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, Application for leave to file brief amici curiae in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion, and brief amici curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion
47.Jump up ^ Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults
48.Jump up ^ NACAC Position Statements
49.Jump up ^ Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
50.Jump up ^ Dempsey, Deborah (Dr) (2013). "Same-sex parented families in Australia" (PDF). CFCA Paper 18 (1): 19.
51.Jump up ^ DONALDSON JAMES, SUSAN (June 23, 2011). "Census 2010: One-Quarter of Gay Couples Raising Children". ABC News. Retrieved July 11, 2013. "Still, more than 80 percent of the children being raised by gay couples are not adopted, according to Gates."
52.Jump up ^ American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (August 2013). "Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Parents" (PDF). Facts For Families. No. 92. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
53.Jump up ^ Goldberg, Abbie E. (2010). Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. p. 146. ISBN 978-1-4338-0536-3.
54.Jump up ^ Salford University: Alphabetical Staff Listing, accessed June 16, 2011
55.^ Jump up to: a b Hicks, Stephen (2005). "Is Gay Parenting Bad for Kids? Responding to the 'Very Idea of Difference' in Research on Lesbian and Gay Parents". Sexualities 8 (2): 165. doi:10.1177/1363460705050852.
56.Jump up ^ Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, Application for leave to file brief amici curiae in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion, and brief amici curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion
57.^ Jump up to: a b Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ruling in Perry v. Brown, accessed May 31, 2012
58.Jump up ^ LA Times on Lesbian/Gay Parents: He Said/She Said?
59.Jump up ^ Wallace, J. “The Manly Art of Pregnancy,” in Bornstein, Kate, and Bergman, S. Bear (2010). Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation. Berkeley: Seal Press
60.Jump up ^ Ball, Carlos A. (2012). The Right to Be Parents: LGBT families and the transformation of parenthood. New York: New York University Press.
61.Jump up ^ European Court of Human Rights (1997). Case of X, Y and Z v. The United Kingdom, Judgment, retrieved from: http://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ECtHR-1997-X-Y-and-Z-v-United-Kingdom.pdf
62.Jump up ^ Owens, Anne Marie. “Father’s Sex Change Does Not Alter Custody, Court Says: Girl, 6, Calls Mommy and Daddy; Cautious in Public.” The National Post, 2 February 2001. Retrieved March 23rd 2014 from: http://search.proquest.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/329903587
63.Jump up ^ Karaian, Lara (2013). Pregnant Men: Repronormativity, Critical Tran Theory and the Re(conceive)ing of Sex and Pregnancy Law. Social & Legal Studies, vol. 22 (No. 2), p. 211-230.
64.Jump up ^ Eckholm, Erik (2014-03-21). "Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-08-03.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to LGBT parenting.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families – A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society (2007)
Too High a Price – The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting (updated second edition) (2006), a publication by the ACLU, includes a detailed review of studies and research.
American Psychological Association (APA) Public Interest Directorate: Research Summary on Lesbian and Gay Parenting (2005)
Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill C38 By the Canadian Psychological Association (2005)
Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics

 






 










 






 































 






 




 
















 


 























 


 



 




 



















 


 









 





 




 







LGBT pride flag

 


 






 


 


 


 





 


 



 






 




 






 


 












 


 






 





 
















 







 




 







 


 











 


 










 



 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Parenting

 



 




















 

















 













 
















 









 












 











 


















  


Categories: Family law
LGBT rights by issue
Parenting
Sexual orientation and society
LGBT parenting








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk





 



Read

Edit

View history










 






Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Español
Français
Hrvatski
Italiano
עברית
Lietuvių
Polski
Português
Русский
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 02:04.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki 
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting





 



LGBT parenting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Greek letter "lambda"
Part of a series on
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights



           


Laws around the world ·
 Recognition of relationships ·
 Same-sex marriage ·
 LGBT parenting (LGBT adoption) ·
 Military service ·
 Immigration issues ·
 Violence against LGBT people ·
 Legal aspects of transsexualism ·
 LGBT rights organizations ·
 Opposition
 


           


Portal icon LGBT portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
LGBT parenting refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people raising up one or more children as parents or foster care parents. This includes: children raised by same-sex couples (same-sex parenting), children raised by single LGBT parents, and children raised by an opposite-sex couple where at least one partner is LGBT.[1]
LGBT people can become parents through various means including current or former relationships, coparenting, adoption, donor insemination, and surrogacy.[2]
Scientific research consistently shows that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as those reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Forms of LGBT parenting 1.1 Adoption 1.1.1 Judgements
1.2 Surrogacy
1.3 Insemination
1.4 Developing methods
2 Statistics
3 Research 3.1 Methodology
3.2 Consensus
3.3 Sexual orientation and gender role
3.4 Homophobia and transphobia
3.5 Other
3.6 Misrepresentation by opponents
4 Other aspects 4.1 Marriage
4.2 Trans parenting
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Forms of LGBT parenting[edit]

 

 Male same-sex couple with a child.
LGBT people can become parents through various means including current or former relationships, coparenting, adoption, foster care, donor insemination, and surrogacy.[2] A gay man, a lesbian, or a transgender person who transitions later in life may have children within an opposite-sex relationship, such as a mixed-orientation marriage, for various reasons.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
Some children do not know they have an LGBT parent; coming out issues vary and some parents may never reveal to their children that they identify as LGBT. Accordingly, how children respond to their LGBT parent(s) coming out has little to do with their sexual orientation or gender identification of choice, but rather with how either parent responds to acts of coming out; i.e. whether there is dissolution of parental partnerships or rather if parents maintain a healthy, open, and communicative relationship after coming out or during transition in the case of trans parents.[17][18][19]
Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, for example, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home.[20] As of 2005, an estimated 270,313 children in the United States live in households headed by same-sex couples.[21]

 

 Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples around the world:
  Joint adoption allowed1
  Second-parent adoption allowed2
  No laws allowing adoption by same-sex couples
1In Finland a law will come into force in 2017.
2In Estonia a law will come into force in 2016.
Adoption[edit]
Main article: LGBT adoption
Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in a dozen countries and in some regions of USA, Australia and Mexico.
Judgements[edit]
In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[22][23]
In 2010 a Florida court declared that reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children, therefore the Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise[24]
Surrogacy[edit]
Main article: Surrogacy
Some gay couples, especially male coupled, decide to have a surrogate pregnancy. A surrogate is a woman carrying an egg fertilised by sperm of one of the men. Some women become surrogates for money, others for humanitarian reasons or both.[25]

 

 Schematic illustration of an AI procedure
Insemination[edit]
Insemination is a method used mostly by lesbian couples. It is when a partner is fertilised with donor sperm injected through a syringe. Some men donate sperm for humanitarian reasons, others for money or both. In some countries the donor can choose to be anonymous (for example in Spain) and in others he cannot have his identity withheld (United Kingdom).
Developing methods[edit]
Currently scientists conduct research on alternative types of human parenthood which can aid same-sex couples to have children.[26] One of the possibilities is obtaining sperm from skin stem cells.[27]
Statistics[edit]
According to US Census Snapshot published in December 2007, same-sex couples with children have significantly fewer economic resources and significantly lower rates of home ownership than heterosexual married couples.[21]
According to a Survey conducted in Poland by the Polish Academy of Sciences on 3000 people, 9% of LGBT people (c. 50 000 people) living in the country were parents.[28] Canadian census in 2011 had similar conclusions to these of the Polish study - 9.4% of Canadian gay couples were bringing up children.[29]
Research[edit]

Family law
Family
 
Marriage and other
 equivalent or similar unions and status
Marriage ·
 Types of marriages
 Prenuptial agreement ·
 Cohabitation
 Civil union ·
 Domestic partnership
 
Validity of marriages
Void and Voidable marriages ·
 Annulment
 
Dissolution of marriages
Divorce ·
 Adultery ·
 Grounds for divorce ·
 No-fault divorce ·
 Matrimonial Causes Act ·
 Legal separation ·
 Alimony ·
 Parenting plan ·
 Residence (UK (E.W. and NI))
 Parental rights ·
 Custody Evaluator (U.S.) ·
 Parenting coordinator (U.S.)
 
Other issues
Paternity ·
 Legitimacy ·
 Child custody
 Legal guardian ·
 Adoption ·
 Child support
 Contact & Visitation
 CAFCASS (UK (E.W.))
 Grandparent visitation
 U.N. Rights of the Child ·
 Children's rights
 Emancipation ·
 Foster care ·
 Ward
 Parental child abduction
 
Private international law
Private international law ·
 Divorce ·
 Marriage ·
 Hague Convention (adoption) ·
 International child abduction
 Hague Convention (child abduction)
 
The Family and the Criminal Code
 (or Criminal Law)
Paternity fraud ·
 Bigamy
 CPS (U.S.) ·
 Child abuse
 Domestic violence ·
 Incest ·
 Child-selling
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
In the United States, studies on the effect of gay and lesbian parenting on children were first conducted in the 1970s, and expanded through the 1980s in the context of increasing numbers of gay and lesbian parents seeking legal custody of their biological children.[30] The widespread pattern of children being raised from infancy in two-parent gay or lesbian homes is relatively recent.
Methodology[edit]
Studies of LGBT parenting have sometimes suffered from small and/or non-random samples and inability to implement all possible controls, due to the small LGBT parenting population and to cultural and social obstacles to identifying as an LGBT parent.
A 1993 review published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage identified fourteen studies addressing the effects of LGBT parenting on children. The review concluded that all of the studies lacked external validity and that therefore: "The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children reared by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."[31]
Fitzgerald's 1999 analysis explained some methodological difficulties:

Many of these studies suffer from similar limitations and weaknesses, with the main obstacle being the difficulty in acquiring representative, random samples on a virtually invisible population. Many lesbian and gay parents are not open about their sexual orientation due to real fears of discrimination, homophobia, and threats of losing custody of their children. Those who do participate in this type of research are usually relatively open about their homosexuality and, therefore, may bias the research towards a particular group of gay and lesbian parents.
Because of the inevitable use of convenience samples, sample sizes are usually very small and the majority of the research participants end up looking quite homogeneous—e.g. white, middle-class, urban, and well-educated. Another pattern is the wide discrepancy between the number of studies conducted with children of gay fathers and those with lesbian mothers...
Another potential factor of importance is the possibility of social desirability bias when research subjects respond in ways that present themselves and their families in the most desirable light possible. Such a phenomenon does seem possible due to the desire of this population to offset and reverse negative images and discrimination. Consequently, the findings of these studies may be patterned by self-presentation bias.[30]
According to a 2001 review of 21 studies by Stacey and Biblarz published in American Sociological Review: "[R]esearchers lack reliable data on the number and location of lesbigay parents with children in the general population, there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of such families. Most studies rely on small-scale, snowball and convenience samples drawn primarily from personal and community networks or agencies. Most research to date has been conducted on white lesbian mothers who are comparatively educated, mature, and reside in relatively progressive urban centers, most often in California or the Northeastern states."[32]
In more recent studies, many of these issues have been resolved due to factors such as the changing social climate for LGBT people.
Herek's paper in American Psychologist stated:

The overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. More recent research has reported data from probability and community-based convenience samples, has used more rigorous assessment techniques, and has been published in highly respected and widely cited developmental psychology journals, including Child Development and Developmental Psychology. Data are increasingly available from prospective studies. In addition, whereas early study samples consisted mainly of children originally born into heterosexual relationships that subsequently dissolved when one parent came out as gay or lesbian, recent samples are more likely to include children conceived within a same-sex relationship or adopted in infancy by a same-sex couple. Thus, they are less likely to confound the effects of having a sexual minority parent with the consequences of divorce.[7]
In a 2009 affidavit filed in the case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Michael Lamb, a professor of psychology and head of Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University, stated:

The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. The studies specific to same-sex parenting were published in leading journals in the field of child and adolescent development, such as Child Development, published by the Society for Research in Child Development, Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. Most of the studies appeared in these (or similar) rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions."[33]
Gartrell and Bos's 25-year longitudinal study, published 2010, was limited to mothers who sought donor insemination and who may have been more motivated than mothers in other circumstances.[34] Gartrell and Bos note that the study's limitations included utilizing a non-random sample, and the lesbian group and control group were not matched for race or area of residence. The study was supported by grants from the Gill Foundation, the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Horizons Foundation, and the Roy Scrivner Fund of the American Psychological Foundation.[35]
Michael J. Rosenfeld, associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, wrote in a 2010 study published in Demography that "[A] critique of the literature—that the sample sizes of the studies are too small to allow for statistically powerful tests—continues to be relevant." Rosenfeld's study, "the first to use large-sample nationally representative data," found that children of same-sex couples demonstrated normal outcomes in school. "The core finding here," reports the study," offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much-debated, small-sample studies."[36]
According to a 2005 brief by the American Psychological Association:

In summary, research on diversity among families with lesbian and gay parents and on the potential effects of such diversity on children is still sparse (Martin, 1993, 1998; Patterson, 1995b, 2000, 2001, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Data on children of parents who identify as bisexual are still not available, and information about children of non-White lesbian or gay parents is hard to find (but see Wainright et al., 2004, for a racially diverse sample)... However, the existing data are still limited, and any conclusions must be seen as tentative... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Although studies of adolescent and young adult offspring of lesbian and gay parents are available (e.g., Gershon et al., 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Wainright et al., 2004), relatively few studies have focused on the offspring of lesbian or gay parents during adolescence or adulthood.[37]
In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated:

Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood. If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage children’s psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful.[5]
Consensus[edit]
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][33][38] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[39] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[40]
Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[4][33] Since the end of the 1980s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[33]
Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: "Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights".[41] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[42] the American Psychological Association,[43] the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,[44] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[45] the National Association of Social Workers,[46] the Child Welfare League of America,[47] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[48] and Canadian Psychological Association.[49] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."[7]
Studies and analyses include Bridget Fitzgerald's 1999 analysis of the research on gay and lesbian parenting, published in Marriage and Family Review, which found that the available studies generally concluded that "the sexual orientation of parents is not an effective or important predictor of successful childhood development"[30] and Gregory M. Herek's 2006 analysis in American Psychologist, which said: "Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment. Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers. Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men."[7] Additionally, some fear that children will inherit their parent’s gender dysphoria or alternate mental health issues in the case of trans parent, yet there is research that suggests “an absence of evidence that children raised by transgendered parents have a greater chance of experiencing […] development issues than raised by non-transgender parents” and further clinical research shows that “children of gender-variant parents do not develop gender dysphoria or mental diseases” due to their parents’ diagnosis with gender identity disorder [19]
In June 2010, the results of a 25-year ongoing longitudinal study by Nanette Gartrell of the University of California and Henny Bos of the University of Amsterdam were released. Gartrell and Bos studied 78 children conceived through donor insemination and raised by lesbian mothers. Mothers were interviewed and given clinical questionnaires during pregnancy and when their children were 2, 5, 10, and 17 years of age. In the abstract of the report, the authors stated: "According to their mothers' reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach's normative sample of American youth."[35]
Analysis of extensive social science literature into the question of children's psychological outcomes of being raised by same-sex parents by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 2013 concluded that "there is now strong evidence that same-sex parented families constitute supportive environments in which to raise children" and that with regard to lesbian parenting "...clear benefits appear to exist with regard to: the quality of parenting children experience in comparison to their peers parented in heterosexual couple families; children's and young adults' greater tolerance of sexual and gender diversity; and gender flexibility displayed by children, particularly sons."[50]
Sexual orientation and gender role[edit]
A number of studies have examined whether the children of lesbian and gay parents are themselves more likely to identify as lesbian and gay. In a 2001 review of 21 studies, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz found that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender, sexual preferences and behavior, suggesting that an environment of heterosexism has hampered scientific inquiry in the area. Their findings indicate that the children with lesbian or gay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and are more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships, which may be partly due to genetic or family socialization processes or "contextual effects," even though children raised by same-sex couples are not more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay and most of them identify as heterosexual.[32] According to US Census, 80% of the children being raised by same-sex couples in US are their biological children.[51] When it comes to family socialization processes and "contextual effects," Stacey and Biblarz point out that children with such parents are disproportionately more likely to grow up in relatively more tolerant school, neighborhood, and social contexts, which are less heterosexist.[32]
A 2005 review by Charlotte J. Patterson for the American Psychological Association found that the available data did not suggest higher rates of homosexuality among the children of lesbian or gay parents.[37] Herek's 2006 review describes the available data on the point as limited.[7] Stacey and Biblarz and Herek stress that the sexual orientation and gender identification of children is of limited relevance to discussions of parental fitness or policies based on the same. In a 2010 review comparing single-father families with other family types, Stacey and Biblarz state, "We know very little yet about how parents influence the development of their children's sexual identities or how these intersect with gender."[8]
Children of LGBT parents do not have any differences in their gender role behaviors in comparison to those observed in heterosexual and/or cisgender family structures.[52]
Homophobia and transphobia[edit]
Children may struggle with negative attitudes about their parents from the harassment they may encounter by living in society.[53]
Other[edit]
Stephen Hicks, a reader in health and social care at the University of Salford[54] questions the value of trying to establish that lesbian or gay parents are defective or suitable. He argues such positions are flawed because they are informed by ideologies that either oppose or support such families.[55] In Hicks' view:

Instead of asking whether gay parenting is bad for kids, I think we should ask how contemporary discourses of sexuality maintain the very idea that lesbian and gay families are essentially different and, indeed, deficient. But, in order to ask this, I think that we need a wider range of research into lesbian and gay parenting... More work of this sort will help us to ask more complex questions about forms of parenting that continue to offer some novel and challenging approaches to family life.[55]
Misrepresentation by opponents[edit]
In a 2006 statement the Canadian Psychological Association released an updated statement on their 2003 and 2005 conclusions, saying, "The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some persons and institutions are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values."[3] Several professional organizations have noted that studies which opponents of LGBT parenting claim as evidence that same-sex couples are unfit parents do not in fact address same-sex parenting, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the effects of the sexes or sexual orientations of parents. Rather, these studies, which only sampled heterosexual parents, found that it was better for children to be raised by two parents instead of one, and/or that the divorce or death of a parent had a negative effect on children.[3][56] In Perry v. Brown, in which Judge Vaughn Walker found that the available studies on stepchildren, which opponents of same-sex marriage cited to support their position that it is best for a child to be raised by its biological mother and father, do not isolate "the genetic relationship between a parent and a child as a variable to be tested" and only compare "children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents," and thus "compare various family structures and do not emphasize biology."[57] Perry also cited studies showing that "adopted children or children conceived using sperm or egg donors are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by their biological parents."[57]
Gregory M. Herek noted that "empirical research can't reconcile disputes about core values, but it is very good at addressing questions of fact. Policy debates will be impoverished if this important source of knowledge is simply dismissed as a 'he said, she said' squabble."[58]
Other aspects[edit]
Marriage[edit]
Main articles: Same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage and the family
Same-sex parenting is often raised as an issue in debates about the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Trans parenting[edit]
There is little to no visibility or public support through pregnancy and parenting resources directed towards trans parents.[19][59]
While “once gay and lesbian parents attain parenthood status[…] they almost never lose it” this is not the case for trans parents, as seen with the cases of Suzanne Daly (1983) and Martha Boyd (2007), two trans women who both had their parental rights, with regard to biological children, terminated on the basis of their diagnosis of gender identity disorder and their trans status. They were perceived to have abandoned their role as "fathers" through their MTF transition, and were perceived to have acted selfishly in putting their own sexual/identity needs before the wellbeing of their children. These cases are amongst many legal custody battles fought by trans parents whereby U.S. courts have completely overlooked defendants suitability as "parents" as opposed to "mothers" or "fathers," roles that are heavily gendered and come with strict societal understandings of normative parental behaviour.[60] In the case of trans individuals who desire to become parents and to be legally recognized as mothers or fathers of their children, courts often refuse to legally acknowledge such roles because of biological discrimination. An example of this is the X, Y and Z vs. U.K case, whereby X, a trans man who had been in a stable relationship with Y, a biological woman who gave birth to Z through artificial insemination through which X was always present, was denied the right to be listed as Z's father on their birth certificate due to the fact that they did not directly inseminate Y.[61]
Recently, Canada has started acknowledging trans parental rights in terms of custody arrangements and of legal recognition of parental status. In 2001, Leslie (formerly Howard) Forester was permitted to retain custody of her daughter after her ex-partner filed for sole custody on the basis of Leslie's transition. The courts ruled that “the applicant’s transsexuality, in itself, without further evidence, would not constitute a material change in circumstances, nor would it be considered a negative factor in custody determination," marking a landmark case in family law whereby "a person’s transsexuality is irrelevant on its own as a factor in his or her ability to be a good parent"[62] Additionally, Jay Wallace, a resident trans-man from Toronto, Canada, “was permitted to identify as Stanley’s father on the province of Ontario’s Statement of Live Birth Form," marking a decoupling of genetics and bio-sex in relation to parental roles.[63]
See also[edit]
Social
Coparenting
LGBT adoption
LGBT adoption in Europe
Same-sex marriage and the family
Surrogacy
Third party reproduction
Medical:
Artificial insemination
Assisted reproductive technology
In vitro fertilisation
Sperm donation
Research:
New Family Structures Study: Published by Mark Regnerus in 2012, this study was widely discredited by researchers, and which claimed to show that children of gay and lesbian parents were adversely affected by their upbringing by parents in same-sex relationships.[64]
Regional:
Same-sex adoption in Brazil
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents
2.^ Jump up to: a b Berkowitz, D & Marsiglio, W (2007). Gay Men: Negotiating Procreative, Father, and Family Identities. Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (May 2007): 366–381
3.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association" (PDF). 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-04-19.
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families – A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-05.
5.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support of plaintiff-appellees
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM et al. (July 2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics 118 (1): 349–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279. PMID 16818585.
7.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Herek GM (September 2006). "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective" (PDF). The American Psychologist 61 (6): 607–21. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607. PMID 16953748.
8.^ Jump up to: a b c How Does the Gender of Parents Matter
9.^ Jump up to: a b Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill C38 by the Canadian Psychological Association – June 2, 2005.
10.Jump up ^ Butler, Katy (March 7, 2006). "Many Couples Must Negotiate Terms of 'Brokeback' Marriages". New York Times.
11.Jump up ^ Gay Men from Heterosexual Marriages: Attitudes, Behaviors, Childhood Experiences, and Reasons for Marriage
12.Jump up ^ Stack, Peggy Fletcher (August 5, 2006), "Gay, Mormon, married", The Salt Lake Tribune
13.Jump up ^ Moore, Carrie A. (March 30, 2007). "Gay LDS men detail challenges". Deseret Morning News.
14.Jump up ^ Bozett, Frederick W. (1987). "The Heterosexually Married Gay and Lesbian Parent". Gay and Lesbian Parents. New York: Praeger. p. 138. ISBN 0-275-92541-2.
15.Jump up ^ Büntzly G (1993). "Gay fathers in straight marriages". Journal of Homosexuality 24 (3–4): 107–14. doi:10.1300/J082v24n03_07. PMID 8505530.
16.Jump up ^ The Married Lesbian
17.Jump up ^ Dunne EJ (1987). "Helping gay fathers come out to their children". Journal of Homosexuality 14 (1–2): 213–22. doi:10.1300/J082v14n01_16. PMID 3655343.
18.Jump up ^ A Family Matter: When a Spouse Comes Out as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual
19.^ Jump up to: a b c Faccio, Elena, Bordin, Elena, & Cipolletta, Sabina (2013). Transsexual Parenthood and New Role Assumptions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 15 (No. 9), p. 1055-1070.
20.Jump up ^ APA Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents & Children, American Psychological Association, July 28 & 30, 2004. Retrieved on 04-06-2007.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Williams Institute: Census Snapshot – United States
22.Jump up ^ EMRK is for the LGBT adoption[dead link]
23.Jump up ^ Euronews: Gleichgeschlechtliche Adoptiveltern – Gerichtshof rügt Frankreich (German)[dead link]
24.Jump up ^ http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf
25.Jump up ^ http://www.ihr.com/infertility/surrogacy/gay-parent-through-surrogacy.html
26.Jump up ^ http://www.gizmag.com/possibility-of-genetic-children-from-same-sex-couples/17228/
27.Jump up ^ http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/stem-cells-same-sex-reproduction.html
28.Jump up ^ http://rodzinyzwyboru.pl/publikacje-i-raporty/
29.Jump up ^ http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.pdf
30.^ Jump up to: a b c Bridget Fitzgerald, "Children of lesbian and gay parents: A review of the literature," Marriage and Family Review, 1999, Volume 29, Number 1, pages 57–75.
31.Jump up ^ Belcastro et al. (1993). "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning". Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 20 (1–2): 105–122. doi:10.1300/J087v20n01_06.
32.^ Jump up to: a b c Stacey J, Biblarz TJ (2001). "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" (PDF). American Sociological Review 66 (2): 159–183. doi:10.2307/2657413. "If these young adults raised by lesbian mothers were more open to a broad range of sexual possibilities, they were not statistically more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay.....Children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships. This may be partly due to genetic and family socialization processes, but what sociologists refer to as "contextual effects" not yet investigated by psychologists may also be important...even though children of lesbian and gay parents appear to express a significant increase in homoeroticism, the majority of all children nonetheless identify as heterosexual, as most theories across the essentialistt" to "social constructionist" spectrum seem (perhaps too hastily) to expect."
33.^ Jump up to: a b c d Michael Lamb, Affidavit – United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (2009)
34.Jump up ^ Discover magazine "Same-Sex Parents Do No Harm". January 2, 2011 edition, p. 77
35.^ Jump up to: a b Gartrell N, Bos H (2010). "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents". Pediatrics 126 (1): 28–36. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3153.
36.Jump up ^ Michael J. Rosenfeld, M. J. (2010). "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School". Demography 47 (3): 755–775. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0112. PMC 3000058. PMID 20879687. edit preprint
37.^ Jump up to: a b American Psychological Association Lesbian & Gay Parenting
38.Jump up ^ Canadian Psychological Association: Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
39.Jump up ^ Escobar, Samantha (July 27, 2013). "Children of Gay Couples Impacted By Parents' Relationship But Not Sexual Orientation: Study". Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
40.Jump up ^ "Gay and Lesbian Parents". American Academy Of Pediatrics. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
41.Jump up ^ cited in Cooper & Cates, 2006, p. 36; citation available on http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
42.Jump up ^ Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples (archived from [1])
43.Jump up ^ Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children
44.Jump up ^ [2][dead link]
45.Jump up ^ Position Statement on Gay and Lesbian Parenting
46.Jump up ^ Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, Application for leave to file brief amici curiae in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion, and brief amici curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion
47.Jump up ^ Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults
48.Jump up ^ NACAC Position Statements
49.Jump up ^ Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
50.Jump up ^ Dempsey, Deborah (Dr) (2013). "Same-sex parented families in Australia" (PDF). CFCA Paper 18 (1): 19.
51.Jump up ^ DONALDSON JAMES, SUSAN (June 23, 2011). "Census 2010: One-Quarter of Gay Couples Raising Children". ABC News. Retrieved July 11, 2013. "Still, more than 80 percent of the children being raised by gay couples are not adopted, according to Gates."
52.Jump up ^ American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (August 2013). "Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Parents" (PDF). Facts For Families. No. 92. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
53.Jump up ^ Goldberg, Abbie E. (2010). Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. p. 146. ISBN 978-1-4338-0536-3.
54.Jump up ^ Salford University: Alphabetical Staff Listing, accessed June 16, 2011
55.^ Jump up to: a b Hicks, Stephen (2005). "Is Gay Parenting Bad for Kids? Responding to the 'Very Idea of Difference' in Research on Lesbian and Gay Parents". Sexualities 8 (2): 165. doi:10.1177/1363460705050852.
56.Jump up ^ Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, Application for leave to file brief amici curiae in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion, and brief amici curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion
57.^ Jump up to: a b Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ruling in Perry v. Brown, accessed May 31, 2012
58.Jump up ^ LA Times on Lesbian/Gay Parents: He Said/She Said?
59.Jump up ^ Wallace, J. “The Manly Art of Pregnancy,” in Bornstein, Kate, and Bergman, S. Bear (2010). Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation. Berkeley: Seal Press
60.Jump up ^ Ball, Carlos A. (2012). The Right to Be Parents: LGBT families and the transformation of parenthood. New York: New York University Press.
61.Jump up ^ European Court of Human Rights (1997). Case of X, Y and Z v. The United Kingdom, Judgment, retrieved from: http://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ECtHR-1997-X-Y-and-Z-v-United-Kingdom.pdf
62.Jump up ^ Owens, Anne Marie. “Father’s Sex Change Does Not Alter Custody, Court Says: Girl, 6, Calls Mommy and Daddy; Cautious in Public.” The National Post, 2 February 2001. Retrieved March 23rd 2014 from: http://search.proquest.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/329903587
63.Jump up ^ Karaian, Lara (2013). Pregnant Men: Repronormativity, Critical Tran Theory and the Re(conceive)ing of Sex and Pregnancy Law. Social & Legal Studies, vol. 22 (No. 2), p. 211-230.
64.Jump up ^ Eckholm, Erik (2014-03-21). "Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-08-03.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to LGBT parenting.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families – A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society (2007)
Too High a Price – The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting (updated second edition) (2006), a publication by the ACLU, includes a detailed review of studies and research.
American Psychological Association (APA) Public Interest Directorate: Research Summary on Lesbian and Gay Parenting (2005)
Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill C38 By the Canadian Psychological Association (2005)
Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics

 






 










 






 































 






 




 
















 


 























 


 



 




 



















 


 









 





 




 







LGBT pride flag

 


 






 


 


 


 





 


 



 






 




 






 


 












 


 






 





 
















 







 




 







 


 











 


 










 



 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Parenting

 



 




















 

















 













 
















 









 












 











 


















  


Categories: Family law
LGBT rights by issue
Parenting
Sexual orientation and society
LGBT parenting








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk





 



Read

Edit

View history










 






Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Español
Français
Hrvatski
Italiano
עברית
Lietuvių
Polski
Português
Русский
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 02:04.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki 
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting


















 



LGBT rights in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


LGBT rights in the United States United States
United States
United States
 
Same-sex sexual activity legal?
Legal nationwide since 2003
 (Lawrence v. Texas)
Gender identity/expression
Laws vary by state
Military service
Yes (for lesbian, gay, and bisexual members); "Don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed in September 2011
Transgender/transsexual and intersex persons not allowed to enlist
Discrimination protections
Varies by state. (see below)
Federal hate-crime law includes sexual orientation and gender identity since 2009
Federal executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation for employees in the federal civilian workforce, along with the government employment in the District of Columbia, and the United States Postal Service, since 1998 (see Executive Order 13087).
Family rights

Recognition of
 relationships
Same-sex unions recognized federally, varies by state

Restrictions:
 Defense of Marriage Act (1996) at federal level - Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act invalidated June 26, 2013 (United States v. Windsor), other restrictions vary by state
Adoption
Varies by state
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States have evolved over time and vary greatly on a state-by-state basis.
Sexual activity between consenting adults and adolescents of a close age of the same sex has been legal nationwide since 2003, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Age of consent in each state varies from age 16 to 18;[1] some states maintain different ages of consent for males/females or for same-sex/opposite-sex relations.
LGBT rights related laws including family, marriage, and anti-discrimination laws vary by state. Thirty-seven states plus Washington, D.C. offer marriage to same-sex couples; these marriages are recognized by the federal government and Missouri, but not by the twelve other states.[2] Additionally, some states offer civil unions or other types of recognition which offer some of the legal benefits and protections of marriage.
Twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and nineteen states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.[3] Hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity are also punishable by federal law under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals is classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4]
Adoption policies in regard to gay and lesbian parents also vary greatly from state to state. Some allow adoption by same-sex couples, while others ban all unmarried couples from adoption.[5]
Civil rights for LGBT people in the United States are advocated by a variety of organizations at all levels and concentrations of political and legal life, including the Human Rights Campaign,[6] Lambda Legal, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.


Contents  [hide]
1 LGBT rights and federal and state law 1.1 Judicial history 1.1.1 State Supreme Court Decisions
1.1.2 United States Supreme Court decisions
1.1.3 United States Court of Appeals Decision
1.1.4 United States District Court Decisions
1.2 Legislative history 1.2.1 Legislative history of same-sex marriage 1.2.1.1 California
1.2.1.2 Vermont
1.2.1.3 Maine
1.2.1.4 New Hampshire
1.2.1.5 District of Columbia
1.2.1.6 New York
1.2.1.7 Washington
1.2.1.8 New Jersey
1.2.1.9 Maryland
1.2.1.10 Rhode Island
1.2.1.11 Illinois
1.2.1.12 Delaware
1.2.1.13 Minnesota
1.2.2 Legislative history of civil unions and domestic partnerships 1.2.2.1 District of Columbia
1.2.2.2 Hawaii
1.2.2.3 California
1.2.2.4 Vermont
1.2.2.5 Rhode Island
1.2.2.6 New Jersey
1.2.2.7 Maine
1.2.2.8 Utah
1.2.2.9 Connecticut
1.2.2.10 Washington
1.2.2.11 New Hampshire
1.2.2.12 Oregon
1.2.2.13 New Mexico
1.2.2.14 Maryland
1.2.2.15 Colorado
1.2.2.16 Wisconsin
1.2.2.17 Nevada
1.2.2.18 Minnesota
1.2.2.19 Illinois

1.3 Initiative and referendum history
1.4 Restrictions 1.4.1 Defense of Marriage Act
1.4.2 State constitutional amendments
1.4.3 State statutes
1.5 Blood and tissue donation
1.6 State adoption laws
1.7 Anti-discrimination laws 1.7.1 Medical facilities
1.7.2 Housing
1.7.3 Employment
1.7.4 Hate crime laws
1.8 Conjugal visits
1.9 Military service
1.10 Laws regarding same-sex sexual activity
2 Reparations
3 Public opinion 3.1 Support
3.2 Opposition
4 U.S. political parties 4.1 US presidents 4.1.1 George Washington
4.1.2 John Adams
4.1.3 Thomas Jefferson
4.1.4 Andrew Jackson
4.1.5 Benjamin Harrison
4.1.6 William McKinley
4.1.7 Woodrow Wilson
4.1.8 Franklin Roosevelt
4.1.9 Harry Truman
4.1.10 Dwight Eisenhower
4.1.11 Lyndon B. Johnson
4.1.12 Richard Nixon
4.1.13 Gerald Ford
4.1.14 Jimmy Carter
4.1.15 Ronald Reagan
4.1.16 George H. W. Bush
4.1.17 Bill Clinton
4.1.18 George W. Bush
4.1.19 Barack Obama
4.2 Democratic Party 4.2.1 National Stonewall Democrats
4.3 Republican Party 4.3.1 Log Cabin Republicans
4.3.2 GOProud
4.4 Libertarian Party 4.4.1 Outright Libertarians
4.5 Constitution Party
4.6 Other political parties 4.6.1 Lavender Greens

5 Summary table of LGBT rights goals in the United States
6 See also
7 Bibliography
8 References
9 External links

LGBT rights and federal and state law[edit]

 

State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States1
  Same-sex marriage legal
  Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed indefinitely
  Same-sex marriage banned where federal circuit court has found similar bans unconstitutional
  Same-sex marriage banned
  Same-sex marriage legality complicated2,3,4
1 Native American tribal jurisdictions have laws pertaining to same-sex marriage independent of state law. The federal government recognizes same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence.
2 Most counties in Alabama had issued same-sex marriage licenses for several weeks after a federal court legalized same-sex marriage, but all have stopped in response to a conflicting order by the state supreme court. However, the state court did not nullify same-sex marriage recognition. In addition, there is a stayed ruling overturning the state's same-sex marriage ban.
3 Many jurisdictions in Kansas issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state government.
4 Same-sex marriage licenses are issued by three jurisdictions within Missouri. Legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the state government. The state's same-sex marriage ban has been overturned, but the decision is stayed indefinitely.
v ·
 t ·
 e
  



See also: Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state, Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States, Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States § Birth certificates and marriage, Same-sex unions in the United States, Civil union in the United States, Domestic partnership in the United States, Cities and counties in the United States offering a domestic partnership registry, Cohabitation in the United States and Common-law marriage in the United States
Judicial history[edit]
State Supreme Court Decisions[edit]
In 1972, the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Baker v. Nelson ruled that a state's denial of a civil marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution's ban on sex discrimination entitled a same-sex couple to a civil marriage license unless the state could prove it had a "compelling state interest" for denying such a license.[7] A lower court in Hawaii then found that the state had failed to show such a compelling interest,[8] and same-sex marriage was legal in Hawaii for a day, before the judge stayed his ruling. Hawaii amended its constitution in 1998 to allow the legislature to restrict marriage to different-sex couples.
Five state Supreme Court decisions have legalized same sex marriage in five US states:
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in California
On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled in In re Marriage Cases overturned Proposition 22, declared the statute banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional and gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal in California on June 16, 2008 . On November 5, 2008 Proposition 8, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, overturned the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage but this was itself overturned by Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry v. Brown and ruled unconstitutional because of the state's Equal Protection Clause on August 4, 2010. This was upheld on February 7, 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was heard by the United States Supreme Court in June 2013 with the same results.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Connecticut
On October 10, 2008 the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health that gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal in Connecticut on November 14, 2008.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Iowa
On April 3, 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Varnum v. Brien that gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal on April 26, 2009 in Iowa.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Mexico
On December 19, 2013 the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in Griego v. Oliver that marriage licenses must be issued to couples regardless of gender. Same-sex marriage became legal on December 19, 2013.
Two state Supreme Court decisions have legalized civil unions in two US states:
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont § Civil union
On December 20, 1999 the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled in Baker v. Vermont that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. The Vermont state legislators choose civil unions. Civil unions became legal in Vermont on July 1, 2000.
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey
On October 25, 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled in Lewis v. Harris same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. The New Jersey state legislators choose civil unions. Civil unions became legal in New Jersey on February 19, 2007.
Two state Supreme Court decisions have allowed same sex couples to adopt:
Main article: LGBT rights in Florida § Adoption
On September 22, 2010 the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in In re: Gill that the 1977 ban on homosexuals adopting children in Florida was unconstitutional allowing same sex couples to adopt children in Florida.
Main article: LGBT rights in Arkansas § Adoption and parenting
On April 7, 2011 the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole that the Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1 that banned non-married couples from adopting children was unconstitutional allowing same sex couples to adopt children in Arkansas.
Many states recognize through their judicial systems cohabitation agreements and common law partner agreements concluded between two partners in a relationship. These are de facto domestic partnerships that protect both parties and allow for shared property and court recognition of their relationships.[9][9]
United States Supreme Court decisions[edit]

 

US sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down. Sodomy laws remaining as of 2003 were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas
  Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1979.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 1980-1989.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 1990-1999.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 2000-2002.
  Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.
In March 1956, a Federal District Court ruled that ONE: The Homosexual Magazine, was obscene under the Federal Comstock laws and thus could not be sent through the United States Postal Service. This ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in 1958, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling in One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371, which overturned the previous rulings under a new legal precedent that had been established by the landmark case, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). As a result, gay newspapers, magazines and other publications could be lawfully distributed through the public mail service. On May 22, 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which among other things banned homosexuals, as constitutional. This ban remained in effect until 1991.[10]
In 1972, a Tacoma, Washington teacher of twelve years with a perfect record was terminated after a former student outed him to the vice-principal. The Washington Supreme Court found that homosexuality was immoral and impaired his efficiency as a teacher. The court supported its conclusion in various ways, including the definition of homosexuality in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the criminal nature of homosexual conduct, and finding that an "immoral" person could not be trusted to instruct students as his presence would be inherently disruptive. On October 3, 1977, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, although Justices Brennan and Marshall would have granted cert. This was the first homosexual discrimination decision to be aired on national network news. In fact, it was simultaneously aired on all three national network evening news shows, reaching approximately 60 million viewers.[11][12][13][14][15]
In 1985, the Supreme Court heard Board of Education v. National Gay Task Force, which concerned First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges against a law that allowed schools to fire teachers for public homosexual conduct.[16] The Court affirmed, by an equally divided vote, the Tenth Circuit's ruling that partially struck down the law.[17][18]
Also in 1985, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, letting stand an appellate ruling ordering the university to provide official recognition of a student organization for homosexual students. The case set a national precedent by removing legal restrictions against gay rights groups on college campuses.[19]
On June 30, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick, that homosexual sex was not protected under the right to privacy.
On May 20, 1996, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Romer v. Evans against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual or bisexual citizens from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.
On March 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that federal laws banning on-the-job sexual harassment also applied when both parties are the same sex. The lower courts, however, have reached differing conclusions about whether this ruling applies to harassment motivated by anti-gay animus.
On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Boy Scouts of America had a First Amendment right to exclude people from its organization on the basis of sexual orientation, irrespective of any applicable civil rights laws.
On June 26, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.[20] Despite this ruling, some states have not repealed their sodomy laws[21] and local law enforcement officers have used these statutes to harass or arrest gay people.[22][23][24]
Ten years after the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2013 that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the equal liberty of the person ... protected by the Fifth Amendment". United States v. Windsor, the title of the landmark case, was decided by a 5 to 4 vote. The federal government is required to recognize marriages performed in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized, and provide federal rights, privileges and benefits.[25][26]
United States Court of Appeals Decision[edit]
On June 25, 2014, the Federal Tenth Circuit Court upheld the Utah Federal District Court ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Utah state-constitutional ban of same sex marriage, and the legislative acts to deny any benefits to such married couples.[27]

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state's marital laws...A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.
 For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.
Since the DOMA decision, on June 26, 2013, all federal judges, who have handed down decisions on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, and unanimously declared them unconstitutional. This decision is the first to break that unanimity. One of the three Federal Court judges on the appeals panel, sided with the defendants, and declared the Utah ban of gay marriage to be constitutional.
Judge Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr. wrote in dissent

I disagree with this court's conclusions that (1) Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), need not be followed and that (2) the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment includes a fundamental right which requires Utah to extend marriage to same-gender couples and recognize same-gender marriages from other states. Because I conclude that there is no such fundamental right, it is unnecessary to consider whether Utah's justifications for retaining its repeatedly-enacted concept of marriage pass heightened scrutiny. In my view, the provisions should be analyzed under traditional equal protection analysis and upheld as rationally related to (1) responsible procreation, (2) effective parenting, and (3) the desire to proceed cautiously in this evolving area.
All of the other federal judges, who have issued decisions on this issue, have rejected all of his legal conclusions.
United States District Court Decisions[edit]
By July 1, 2014, ten separate Federal District Court cases had been decided, after the Supreme Court's DOMA decision. All of these decisions are unanimous in finding that bans of gay marriage violate due process and equal protection and were therefore unconstitutional. Decisions were rendered in Idaho,[28] Indiana,[29] Kentucky, Michigan,[30] Pennsylvania,[31] Oklahoma,[32] Oregon,[33] Texas,[34] Utah,[35] Virginia,[36] and Wisconsin[37] These decisions were also unanimous in deciding that the Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Nelson (see above) no longer applies.[31] U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, III ruled, in the Pennsylvania decision, that[31]:13

we, and our sister district courts that have examined precisely this same issue, no longer consider Baker v. Nelson controlling due to the significant doctrinal developments in the four decades that have elapsed since it was announced by the Supreme Court. determination, which has been resoundingly echoed by our sister district courts which have considered, and rejected, Baker's precedential value in light of doctrinal developments in the areas of constitutional due process and equal protection.
Candy Wagahoff Dale, Chief United States Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled,[28]:12

The Supreme Court's marriage cases recognize an individual's fundamental right to marry. The right transcends one's race, confinement to prison, or ability to support children. Lawrence unequivocally cements marriage as among the constitutionally protected liberties shared by homosexual and heterosexual persons alike. The teaching of these cases is that the fundamental right to marry cannot be narrowed...
Judge Jones' decision also said,[31]:39

The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of 'separate but equal.' ... In the sixty years since Brown was decided, 'separate' has thankfully faded into history, and only 'equal' remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.

We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.
The June 6, 2014, opinion and order, of Judge Crabb said,[37]:4

this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.
 ...the parties in this case...agree about...the central role that marriage plays in American society. It is a defining rite of passage...the most important for some. ...by refusing to extend marriage to the plaintiffs..., defendants are...denying equal citizenship to plaintiffs.
Legislative history[edit]
Since the turn of the century there was a strong push to enact specific legislation, or state constitutional amendments, either legalizing gay marriage, or banning it in nearly every state. As of June 1, 2014, the situation is fluid. In several states petitions are being circulated to place the issue on the November 2014 ballot. In every state with a ban there is a federal court case challenging the constitutionality of the ban.[38]
Legislative history of same-sex marriage[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
Nine states and the District of Columbia legislators have passed same-sex marriage bills in their states, of which four were vetoed by the governors, four were signed by state governors and the mayor of Washington D.C., and one was overridden by the state legislature:
California[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in California
In September 2003 the California state legislators passed a same-sex marriage bill which was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. This was the first time a state legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill. In September 2007 the California state legislators again passed a same-sex marriage law, but it was once again vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. On October 12, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill, passed by the California state legislature, that recognized same-sex marriages performed outside of the state of California before November 5, 2008. Same-sex marriages performed after November 5, 2013 are recognized in California with all of the legal rights of marriage but without the use of the word marriage.
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States in Hollingsworth v. Perry decided that the proponents of California Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to defend the provision of the California Constitution that stopped same-sex marriages in the state. Then, on June 28, 2013, a stay of effect, resulting from Proposition 8, was removed from the federal district court and thus, marriages by couples of the same-sex were allowed to be conducted again.
Vermont[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont
On March 25, 2009, Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the same sex marriage bill passed by the Vermont state legislators. On April 7, 2009, the Vermont state legislators overrode the Governor's veto. Same-sex marriage in Vermont became legal on September 1, 2009.
Maine[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Maine
On May 6, 2009, Governor John Baldacci signed the same sex marriage bill passed by the Maine state legislators. On November 3, 2009, a voter referendum vetoed the state law that would have legalized same-sex marriage in Maine. In another voter initiative held on November 6, 2012, same-sex marriage was approved and became legal on December 29, 2012.
New Hampshire[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire
On June 3, 2009, Governor Lynch signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the New Hampshire state legislators. Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire became legal on January 1, 2010.
District of Columbia[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia
On December 18, 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the Council of the District of Columbia. Same-sex marriages in the District of Columbia became legal on March 9, 2010.
New York[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New York
In June 2007 and December 2009 the New York state legislators attempted to pass a same sex marriage bill but it failed to pass. On May 29, 2008, Governor David Paterson directed all New York State agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Governor Paterson's directive cited the Appellate Division decision in the Martinez case, as well as several lower court rulings. As a result of the governor's directive, New York became the first state that did not allow same-sex marriages, but whose state agencies recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. On June 24, 2011, Governor Cuomo signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the New York state legislature. Same-sex marriage became legal in New York on July 24, 2011. Prior to which, same-sex couples could be married in a neighboring state, such as Massachusetts, or Connecticut, and enjoy full state-level recognition of their marriage.
Washington[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Washington
On February 13, 2012, Governor Christine Gregoire signed same-sex marriage legislation, which was then approved in a voter referendum on November 6, and took effect on December 6.
New Jersey[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey § Same-sex marriage
On February 16, 2012, the New Jersey state legislators passed a same-sex marriage bill. On February 17, 2012, Governor Chris Christie vetoed the same-sex marriage bill.
On September 27, 2013, a justice of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled in Garden State Equality v. Dow that civil unions are unequal to marriage, and thus the state must recognize and perform same-sex marriages. The governor initially requested a stay from the Supreme Court of New Jersey, but the request was unanimously denied. On October 18, 2013, the same day that county clerks started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Christie withdrew his appeal, effectively permanently legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey.
Maryland[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Maryland
On February 24, 2010, Maryland's Attorney General, Doug Gansler, issued an opinion after analyzing Maryland's comity laws that the state could recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states which permit same-sex marriage. According to Attorney General Gansler, the opinion is binding on state agencies effective immediately. On March 1, 2012, Governor Martin O'Malley signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by Maryland state legislators. Same sex marriage became legal in Maryland on January 1, 2013 after 52.4% of state voters approved the law in a referendum on November 6, 2012.
Rhode Island[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island
On May 14, 2012, Governor Lincoln Chafee signed an executive order recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.
On May 2, 2013, he signed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage, effective August 1.[39]
Illinois[edit]
On February 15, 2013, the Illinois Senate passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.[40] The bill passed in the House of Representatives on November 5, 2013.[41] Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law two weeks later.[42]
On February 21, 2014, a federal judge authorized Cook County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples without waiting for the Illinois statute legalizing same-sex marriage to take effect on June 1, and the county clerk began issuing licenses immediately.[43][44] Other Illinois County Clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a result of that ruling.
Delaware[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Delaware
On May 11, 2011, Governor Jack Markell signed a civil union bill passed by the Delaware state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Delaware on January 1, 2012. Civil unions in Delaware grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
On May 7, 2013, Governor Jack Markell signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Delaware, making it the 11th state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Minnesota[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Minnesota
On May 13, 2013, a same-sex marriage bill passed in the Senate, after being passed through the House on May 9.
On May 14, 2013, Governor Mark Dayton signed the legislation into law, making Minnesota the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage, effective August 1, 2013.
Legislative history of civil unions and domestic partnerships[edit]
Fifteen U.S. states have civil unions or domestic partnerships:

 

State laws regarding same-sex unions similar to marriage in the United States1
  Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting state privileges of marriage2
  Same-sex unions granting limited/enumerated privileges
  No prohibition or recognition of same-sex unions similar to marriage
  Same-sex union ban overturned, decision stayed
  Same-sex unions similar to marriage banned
1Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal in most states and is recognized by the federal government.
2Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.
District of Columbia[edit]
Main article: District of Columbia § Domestic_partnerships
On June 11, 1992, Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly signed into law a domestic partnership passed by the City Council. It came into effect on June 11, 1992 but was delayed from being implemented in the District of Columbia until 2002, due to a Republican rider added to delay its implementation. Domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia have been expanded over the years, the largest expansion was on May 6, 2008 when the City Council passed a domestic partnership expansion granting domestic partnerships almost exactly the same rights as married couples. On May 20, 2009, the City Council passed and signed into law allowing DC recognition of other states domestic partnerships and amending DC laws on parentage entitlements and rights to children from adult domestic partnerships. The proposed law became effective from July 20, 2009.
Hawaii[edit]
Main articles: Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii and Recognition of same-sex unions in Hawaii
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the state had no compelling interest to deny same-sex couples a marriage license. In response, Hawaii state legislators submitted a constitutional amendment to the public to reserve marriage regulation solely to the discretion of the state legislature. The amendment passed and prohibited implementation of the Supreme Court's ruling. In March 1996, Hawaii state legislators attempted and failed to pass a law to legalize domestic partnerships. In June 1997, Governor Ben Cayetano signed the Reciprocal Beneficiary Act into law, providing limited rights for a "legal relationship created when two consenting adults who are prohibited from marriage."[45] In 2010, Governor Linda Lingle vetoed a civil union bill passed by the Hawaii state legislators. The same civil unions bill was signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie on February 23, 2011. Civil unions in Hawaii went into effect January 1, 2012. Civil unions in Hawaii grant most of the rights afforded to married couples.
California[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnerships in California
California state legislators attempted to pass four domestic partnerships bills in 1994, 1998, and twice in 1999, of which those in 1994 and 1998 were vetoed by Governor Pete Wilson both times. In 1999 Governor Davis vetoed a domestic partnership bill in order to sign another less broad bill into law. On September 22, 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed the domestic partnership bill passed by the California state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in California on January 3, 2000, becoming the first US state to legalize domestic partnerships. Domestic partnerships in California have been expanded over the years, the largest expansion was on September 4, 2003 when the California state legislators passed a domestic partnership expansion granting domestic partnerships almost exactly the same rights as married couples, along with recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships performed out of state. This came into effect on January 1, 2005.
Vermont[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont § Civil union
Due to a state Supreme Court decision, on April 26, 2000, Governor Howard Dean signed a civil union bill passed by the Vermont state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Vermont on July 1, 2000, making it the first US state to recognize civil unions and the first to grant exactly the same rights as married couples.
Rhode Island[edit]
Since 2002, Rhode Island has allowed for domestic partnerships that provide some of the rights and benefits of marriage. On July 2, 2011, Governor Lincoln Chafee signed civil union bill passed by Rhode Island state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Rhode Island on July 1, 2011. Civil unions in Rhode Island grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
New Jersey[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey
On January 12, 2004, Governor Jim McGreevey signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the New Jersey state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in New Jersey on July 10, 2004.
Due to a state Supreme Court decision, on December 21, 2006, Governor Jon Corzine signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the New Jersey state legislators. Civil unions became legal in New Jersey on February 19, 2007. Civil unions in New Jersey grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
Maine[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Maine
On April 28, 2004, Governor John Baldacci signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Maine state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Maine on July 30, 2004. Domestic partnerships in Maine offer limited recognition of same-sex relationships, but not all of the legal protections of marriage.
Utah[edit]
In February 2005 Utah state legislators attempted to pass a reciprocal beneficiary relationship bill, but it failed to pass.
Connecticut[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Connecticut § Civil union
On October 1, 2005, Governor Jodi Rell signed a civil unions bill passed by the Connecticut state legislators, and civil unions went into effect in Connecticut on the same day. On October 1, 2010, all existing civil unions were automatically transformed into marriages.
Washington[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Washington
On April 21, 2007, Governor Christine Gregoire signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Washington state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Washington on July 22, 2007. Domestic partnerships in Washington have been expanded over the years, the largest expansion was on November 6, 2009 when the voters of Washington passed Washington Referendum 71 was passed a domestic partnership expansion granting domestic partnerships almost exactly the same rights as married couples. This came into effect on December 3, 2009.
New Hampshire[edit]
In April 2007, the New Hampshire state legislators attempted to pass a civil union bill but it failed to pass. On May 31, 2007, Governor John Lynch signed a civil union bill passed by the New Hampshire state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Washington on January 1, 2008. On January 1, 2010, all existing civil unions were automatically transformed into marriages.
Oregon[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Oregon
In 2005 the Oregon state legislators attempted to pass a civil union bill but it failed to pass. On May 9, 2007, Governor Kulongoski signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Oregon state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Oregon on February 4, 2008. Domestic partnerships in Oregon grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
New Mexico[edit]
In February 2008 and 2009, New Mexico state legislators attempted to pass a domestic partnership bill but each attempt failed.
Maryland[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Maryland § Domestic partnerships
In May 2005 the Maryland state legislators attempted to pass a domestic partnership bill in Maryland but it was vetoed by Governor Bob Ehrlich. On May 22, 2008, Governor Martin O'Malley signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Maryland state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Maryland on July 1, 2008 and offered limited benefits to unmarried same-sex couples, but not all of the legal protections of marriage. Because voters in the state approved a law to legalize same-sex marriage on November 6, 2012, the state plans to end domestic partnership benefits on January 1, 2014.[46]
In 2014 Governor Martin O'Malley signed a law making it illegal to discriminate against transgender people on matters related to housing, credit, employment, and public restrooms. The law faced harsh opposition from Republicans who called it the "bathroom bill".[47] There was an attempt by a conservative group to overturn the law by forcing referendum, but they came up about 1,000 signatures short of the required 18,500 signatures that are required to put the bill to referendum.[48]
Colorado[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Colorado
On April 9, 2009, Governor Bill Ritter signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Colorado state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Colorado on July 1, 2009. Domestic partnerships in Colorado offer limited recognition of same-sex relationships, but not all of the legal protections of marriage. In March 2011 and May 2012 Colorado state legislators attempted to pass a civil unions bill, but it was killed both times by the Republicans. In March 2013, the Colorado Senate and House passed a bill legalizing civil unions, which Governor John Hickenlooper signed on March 21, 2013. Civil unions began in Colorado on May 1, 2013.
Wisconsin[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Wisconsin
On June 29, 2009, Governor Jim Doyle signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Wisconsin state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Wisconsin on August 3, 2009. Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin offer limited recognition of same-sex relationships, but not all of the legal protections of marriage.
Nevada[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada
On May 26, 2009, Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Nevada state legislators. This veto was overridden by the Senate on May 30, 2009. Domestic partnerships became legal in Nevada on October 1, 2009. Domestic partnerships in Nevada grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
Minnesota[edit]
In May 2010 Minnesota state legislators attempted to pass a domestic partnership bill, but it was vetoed by the governor.
On May 13, 2013, a bill that passed through the House in attempt to legalize same-sex marriages in the state passed the Senate. Minnesota was the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Illinois[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois
On January 12, 2011, Governor Pat Quinn signed a civil union bill passed by the Illinois state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Illinois on June 1, 2011. Civil unions in Illinois provide almost the same rights as marriages.
Initiative and referendum history[edit]
See also: List of US ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination laws
Fifteen states had initiatives to vote on same sex marriage and all but one time same sex marriage was defeated.[49] In the 2012 November elections, Washington, Maryland, and Maine all had referendums to vote on same sex marriage. In this same election, Minnesota had an initiative to add a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Following the results of this election, Maryland, Maine, and Washington became the first states to allow same-sex marriage through popular vote.[50] while in turn Minnesota voters rejected the proposed ban.
On November 7, 1978, California voted 41.6% in favor and 58.4% against Proposition 6, also known as Briggs Initiative, which if passed would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in California's public schools. California became the first US state to vote in favor of gay rights. The Briggs Initiative was the first ballot measure to try and restrict gay rights.
On November 3, 1992, Colorado voted 53.41% in favor and 46.59% against Initiative 2 which was a constitutional amendment which prohibited local laws from giving protected status for sexual orientation. Initiative 2 was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1996.
On November 3, 1992, Oregon voted 43.5% in favor and 56.5% against Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992) was an amendment that if passed would have banned the government in Oregon to use their monies or properties to "promote, encourage or facilitate" homosexuality.
On March 7, 2000, California voted 61.40% in favor and 38.60% against Proposition 22 which banned same sex marriage in the California stature. Proposition 22 was found unconstitutional and overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2008.
November 7, 2000, Nebraska voted 67.5% in favor and 28.8% against Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000) which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 7, 2000, Nevada voted 69.62% in favor and 30.38% against Nevada Question 2 (2000). On November 7, 2002, Nevada voted 67.20% in favor and 32.80% against Nevada Question 2 (2002) again, which after the second approval, banned same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Arkansas voted 75% in favor and 25% against Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 3 (2004), which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Montana voted 66.6% in favor and 33.4% against Montana Initiative 96 (2004), which bans same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, North Dakota voted 73.23% in favor and 26.77% against North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 (2004), which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Ohio voted 61.71% in favor and 38.29% against Ohio State Issue 1 (2004), which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Oregon voted 56.63% in favor and 43.37% against Oregon Ballot Measure 36 (2004), which bans same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Michigan voted 58.6% in favor and 41.4% against Michigan State Proposal – 04-2 (2004), which bans same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in the constitution.
On November 7, 2006, Colorado voted 47.65% in favor and 52.35% against Colorado Referendum I (2006), which would have passed would have legalized domestic partnerships in Colorado. Also on the same day Colorado voted 55.02% in favor and 44.98% against Amendment 43 which banned same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 7, 2006, Arizona voted 48.2% in favor and 51.8% against Proposition 107, which would have banned same sex marriage and civil unions in the Arizona state constitution.
On April 3, 2007, Alaska voted 52.8% in favor and 47.2% against Alaska Advisory Vote on Same-Sex Public Employment Benefits, which would have prohibit the state, or a municipality or other subdivision of the state, from providing employment benefits to same-sex partners of public employees and to same-sex partners of public employee retirees. Although the referendum passed a bill to place such a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2008 stalled in the state legislature.
On November 4, 2008, Florida voted 61.92% in favor and 38.08% against Florida Amendment 2, which bans both same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 4, 2008, Arkansas voted 57.07% in favor and 42.93% against Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, which was a constitutional amendment that banned all unmarried couples from adopting children.
On November 4, 2008, California voted 52.24% in favor and 47.76% against Proposition 8, which overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision legalizing same sex marriage by banning same sex marriage in the constitution. Proposition 8 has since been declared unconstitutional.
On November 6, 2009, Maine voted 52.75% in favor and 47.25% against Maine Question 1 which vetoed the same sex marriage law from coming into effect.
On November 6, 2009, Washington voted 53.15% in favor and 46.85% against Referendum 71 to allow the "everything but marriage" domestic partnership expansion to go into effect on December 3, 2009. This made Washington the first state to vote to expand rights of same sex couples.
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voted 61.04% in favor and 38.96% against North Carolina Amendment 1, which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 6, 2012, Maryland voted 52.4% in favor and 47.6% against Question 6 which allowed same-sex couples to receive civil marriage licenses starting January 1, 2013. Maryland became one of the first states to approve same-sex marriage through a popular vote.
On November 6, 2012, Maine voted 53% in favor and 47% against Maine Question 1 which overturned the 2009 voter-approved ballot measure to ban a previous law allowing same sex marriage. Maine also became one of the first states to pass same sex marriage through popular vote.
On November 6, 2012, Washington voted 54% in favor and 46% against Referendum 74 which allowed same sex marriage to be legalized in the state. Washington state also became one of the first states to pass same sex marriage through popular vote.
On November 6, 2012, Minnesota voted 47.66% in favor and 52.34% against Minnesota Amendment 1, a proposed amendment to the Minnesota state constitution which would have restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Restrictions[edit]
Defense of Marriage Act[edit]
Main article: Defense of Marriage Act
See also: Respect for Marriage Act
The events of the Hawaii Supreme Court prompted the United States Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions and relieved states of the requirement that they recognize same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions.
On June 26, 2013, Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor.
State constitutional amendments[edit]
See also: U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions, List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type and Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States § Efforts to ban same-sex unions by constitutional amendment

Ambox current red.svg
 This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2015)
There was a backlash after Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage during the 2004 election cycle where fourteen states amended their constitution to ban recognition of same-sex marriages and often civil unions as well. Mississippi voters amended their constitution, 86% to 14% – the largest margin in any state[51][52] – to ban same-sex marriage and to prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legal elsewhere. Laws in Virginia, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina and Ohio, the most far-reaching, forbid recognition of any benefits similar to those of marriage between people of the same sex.
Twenty-eight states have passed state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
California Proposition 8 was found unconstitutional in 2010 by a United States District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and later the Supreme Court, but since the government of California declined to defend the ballot measure, the Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2013 to dismiss both appeals.[53][54][55] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted its stay of the district court's ruling, enabling same-sex marriages to resume.[56]
Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to outlaw same-sex marriage; that state's lawmakers then did so in 1998.
On November 6, 2012, Minnesota became the first state to vote down a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment failed with a 53% to 47% vote.[57]
State statutes[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States § Efforts to prohibit same-sex unions

Ambox current red.svg
 This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2015)
After the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 many state legislators enacted state statutes, nicknamed mini-DOMA's, that ban same sex marriage.[58] Twenty-seven states have state statutes that ban same-sex marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon all have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, but no state statutes banning same sex marriage. California's statute has been repealed as a result of both In Re Marriage Cases and Hollingsworth by SB 1306 (2014).
Three states have state statutes that ban same-sex marriage, but do not have same-sex marriage banned in the constitution: Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
California, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Delaware, Maine, Washington, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia used to have statutes banning same sex marriage, until they were overturned by courts or repealed by the state legislature. Proposition 22, the initiative which reinforce the 1977 statute ban on same-sex marriage in California, was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in 2008 but was subsequently reinstated by Proposition 8 until it was struck down in Hollingsworth.
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have never had any bans in neither their constitutions nor statute banning same-sex marriage.
Blood and tissue donation[edit]
Main article: MSM blood donor controversy § United_States
In the US, the current guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is to permanently defer any male donor who has had sex with another man, in the period from 1977 to the present day. Furthermore, FDA regulations prevent the donation of tissues not considered lifesaving from men who have had sex with other men or have an unknown sexual history.[59]
State adoption laws[edit]
Main article: LGBT adoption in the United States

 

Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples in the United States:
  Joint adoption and stepparent adoption legal
  Joint adoption legal
  Stepparent adoption legal
  Joint adoption and stepparent adoption illegal
  Joint adoption illegal
  Stepparent adoption illegal
  Unknown/ambiguous
Anti-discrimination laws[edit]
Medical facilities[edit]
On April 14, 2010, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order to the Department of Health and Human Services to draft new rules for all hospitals accepting Medicare or Medicaid funds. They would require facilities to grant visitation and medical decision-making rights to gay and lesbian partners, as well as designees of others such as widows and widowers.[60] Such rights are not protected by law in many states. Obama said he was inspired by the case of a Florida family, where one of the mothers died while her partner and four children were denied visitation by the hospital.[60]
Housing[edit]

 

 States that prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. HUD regulations require all housing providers that receive HUD funding not to discriminate against an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.
  Prohibits housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
  Prohibits housing discrimination based on sexual orientation only
  Does not factor sexual orientation or gender identity/unclear
Main article: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is an agency within the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. FHEO is responsible for administering and enforcing federal fair housing laws and establishing policies that make sure all Americans have equal access to the housing of their choice. Housing discrimination refers to discrimination against potential or current tenants by landlords. In the United States, there is no federal law against such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but at least twenty-two states and many major cities have enacted laws prohibiting it.[61] See, for example, Washington House Bill 2661.
In 2012, The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued a regulation to prohibit LGBT discrimination in federally-assisted housing programs. The new regulations ensure that the Department's core housing programs are open to all eligible persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is responsible for enforcing a variety of fair housing laws, which prohibit discrimination in both privately owned and publicly assisted housing including:
The Fair Housing Act
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 109 of Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
Employment[edit]

 

 Current U.S. LGBT employment discrimination laws.
  Sexual orientation and gender identity: all employment
  Sexual orientation with anti–employment discrimination ordinance and gender identity solely in public employment
  Sexual orientation: all employment
  Sexual orientation and gender identity: state employment
  Sexual orientation: state employment
  No state-level protection for LGBT employees
Main article: LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
There is no federal statute addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Protections at the national level are limited. Some regulations protect government employees but do not extend their protections to the private sector. Twenty-two states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual identity. Employment discrimination refers to discriminatory employment practices such as bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, and various types of harassment.[62] In the United States there is "very little statutory, common law, and case law establishing employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation as a legal wrong."[63]
Presidents have established certain protections for some employees of the federal government by executive order. In 1995, President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12968 establishing criteria for the issuance of security clearances included sexual orientation for the first time in its non-discrimination language: "The United States Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information." It also said that "no inference" about suitability for access to classified information "may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee."[64] Clinton's Executive Order 13087 in 1998 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce. It applied to the large majority of federal employees, but not to the excepted services such as the military.[65]
At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On July 1, 2011, the EEOC ruled that job discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals constituted a form of sex-stereotyping and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[66] On April 20, 2012,[66] the EEOC went further and ruled that gender identity was also a protected class under the ban on sex discrimination found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[67]
On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce and both "sexual orientation" and gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors.[68][69]
Hate crime laws[edit]
Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States
Hate crime laws (also known as bias crimes laws) protect against crimes motivated by feelings of enmity against a protected class. Until 2009, a 1969 federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability. It removed the requirement that the victim of a hate crime be engaged in a federally protected activity.[70] President Obama signed the legislation on October 28, 2009.[71]
Two statutes, the Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990) and the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act (1997), require the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as college/university campus security authorities, to collect and publish hate crime statistics.

 

 Current U.S. LGBT hate crimes laws by state. A national hate crimes law encompasses both sexual orientation and gender identity.
  Sexual orientation and gender identity recognized in state hate crimes law
  Sexual orientation recognized in state hate crimes law
  Sexual orientation recognized for data collection about hate crimes
  State hate crimes law uninclusive of sexual orientation or gender identity
Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AR, GA, IN, SC, and WY). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity; 32 cover disability; 32 of them cover sexual orientation; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 18 cover transgender/gender-identity; 5 cover political affiliation.[72] 31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts.[72] 27 states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.[72]
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) the Supreme Court unanimously held that state penalty-enhancement laws for hate crimes were constitutional and did not violate First Amendment rights to freedom of thought and expression.
Conjugal visits[edit]
Main article: Conjugal visits in the United States


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2014)
In the United States, six states permit conjugal visits to prisoners: California, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Washington. All except Mississippi have legalized same-sex marriage.[73] In June 2007, California, following the enactment in 2005 of a state law requiring state agencies to provide the same rights to domestic partners as to married couples, became the first US state to allow same-sex conjugal visits. The new rules allowed for visits only by registered same-sex married couples or domestic partners, provided that the same-sex marriage or domestic partnership was established before the prisoner was incarcerated. In April 2011, New York adopted rules to allow conjugal visits for same-sex partners who are married or in civil unions.
Military service[edit]
Main article: Sexual orientation and the United States military
See also: Don't ask, don't tell and Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
Prior to 1993, lesbian and gay people were not permitted to serve in the US military. Under the "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy enacted that year, they were permitted to do so only if they did not disclose their sexual orientation. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 permitted homosexual men and women to serve openly in the armed forces following once designated government officials certified that the military was prepared for the repeal.[74] Since September 20, 2011, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have been able to serve openly.[75] Transgender and intersex service-members however are still banned from serving openly, due to Department of Defense medical policies which consider gender identity disorder to be a medically disqualifying condition.[76]
Laws regarding same-sex sexual activity[edit]
Main article: Sodomy laws in the United States
See also: Crimes against nature and Age of consent in North America § United States
Prior to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, same-sex sexual activity was illegal in fourteen US states, Puerto Rico, and the US military.
By that time, twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and five territories had repealed their state's sodomy laws by legislative action.[77][78] After the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the US Congress repealed sodomy laws in the US military. Twelve states have had state Supreme Court or state Appeals courts rule that their state's sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Virginia have all had their state sodomy laws struck down by the courts, but the legislatures have not repealed those laws.[79] On April 18, 2013, the governor of Montana signed a bill repealing that state's sodomy law; it had previously been nullified by the Montana Supreme Court.[80]
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah have yet to repeal or strike down their state's sodomy laws, although these are unenforceable since the US Supreme Court ruling.
Reparations[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (March 2014)
In 2003 Robert DeKoven, a professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, was the first proponent to argue that gays and lesbians in the United States should be redressed for what they have suffered through years and decades of suppression and attacks.[81] DeKoven cited the examples of the European Court of Human Rights as a model. New York University Professor Jacob Appel also argued that cause in 2009 in the Free Press.[82]
Public opinion[edit]
Main article: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

 

 Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America
  A poll reports a significant finding that a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
 (95% significant: Result is > 0.653 of the 95% sampling error (> 1.28σ) above 50%.)
  A poll shows at least a plurality, and possibly a majority, of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  A poll shows a statistical tie between support of and opposition to same-sex marriage.
 (Statistical tie: Not distinguishable at 95% confidence. Difference between support and opposition is < 0.842 of the 95% sampling error (< 1.65σ).)
  A poll shows at least a plurality, and possibly a majority, of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  A poll reports a significant finding that a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
 (95% significant: Result is > 0.653 of the 95% sampling error (> 1.28σ) above 50%.)
  No polling data within the past two years.
When a state is striped with light gray and another color, the color stripe indicates the result of the last poll for that state, in the absence of data within the past two years.
 A state shown with two colors indicates recent polls with conflicting results.
A March 2014 public opinion poll by Washington Post/ABC News showed support for same-sex marriage at 59% among Americans,[83] and a February 2014 New York Times/CBS News opinion poll showed 56% support for same-sex marriage.[84] A November 2012 Gallup poll indicated 61% support for gays and lesbians being allowed to adopt children.[85]
Older polls showed that the nation could be divided into roughly equal thirds: one third supports same-sex marriage completely, another supports only civil unions, and the last is against any form of union entirely.[86][87] However, in terms of attitudes to homosexuality, the United States can hardly be called one country. It is common for polls to show a clear majority support for same-sex marriage in Northeastern states, and Pacific Coast states. States that have consistently shown a majority support for same-sex marriage for at least the past few years include Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York,[88] New Jersey,[89] New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. While some of these states do not have same-sex marriage, Iowa, which does have same-sex marriage, does not have majority support; in fact, polls place support in the high forties (slightly lower than the national average). In New York, where there was majority support reported since 2005, marriage became legal on July 24, 2011. Iowa falls into a second category of states, where new generations of voters overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage (those under thirty have support placed above 60%).[90][91]
Support[edit]
Main article: List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States
The main supporters of gay rights in the U.S. have generally been political liberals and libertarians. Regionally, support for the gay rights movement has been strongest in the areas of the North and West coasts, and in other states with large urban populations. Although the national Republican Party official platform opposes gay rights in the early 21st century, groups advocating for LGBT issues inside the party include the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, Young Conservatives For The Freedom To Marry, and College Republicans of the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University. A poll in March 2014 found that 40% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.[92] In 2013, 52% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents between the age of 18–49 years old supported same-sex marriage in a joint Washington Post-ABC News poll.[93]
Opposition[edit]
Main article: LGBT rights opposition in the United States
The main opponents of gay rights in the U.S. have generally been political and religious conservatives. Conservatives cite various Bible passages from the Old and New Testaments as their justification for opposing gay rights. Regionally, opposition to the gay rights movement has been strongest in the South and in other states with a large rural and conservative population.
As the movement for same-sex marriage has developed, many national and/or international organizations have opposed that movement. Those organizations include the American Family Association, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Save Our Children, NARTH, the national Republican Party,[94] the Roman Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),[95] the Southern Baptist Convention,[96] Alliance for Marriage, Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage. A number of these groups have been named as anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[97]
U.S. political parties[edit]
US presidents[edit]
George Washington[edit]
Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army
To train the new American Army in the latest military drills and tactics, General George Washington brought in Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben (1730–94), who had been an officer on the German General staff. Von Steuben escaped Germany where he was threatened with prosecution for homosexuality. He joined Washington's army at Valley Forge in February 1778 accompanied by two young aides. Steuben became an American general, and a senior advisor to Washington. Despite rumors about sexual behavior at his parties, there never was an investigation of Steuben, and he received a Congressional pension after the war.[98][99]
The first evidence of antipathy to homosexuals serving in the United States military dates from March 11, 1778, when Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin was brought to trial before a court-martial. According to General Washington's report: "...Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcolm's Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy ..." Washington's secretary described the results of the trial: "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence & Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning...."[100]
John Adams[edit]
Presidency
In 1801, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia in the now formally structured District, with those of Maryland applying to that portion of the District ceded from Maryland, and those of Virginia applying to that portion ceded from Virginia. At the time, Maryland had a sodomy law applicable only to free males with a punishment of "labour for any time, in their discretion, not exceeding seven years for the same crime, on the public roads of the said county, or in making, repairing or cleaning the streets or bason [sic] of Baltimore-town;" it imposed the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. Similarly, Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for free persons committing sodomy, but imposed the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. The law went into effect on February 27, 1801.[101]
Thomas Jefferson[edit]
Governorship of Virginia
In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy.[102] However, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.[103]
Andrew Jackson[edit]
Presidency
In 1831, Congress established penalties in the District of Columbia for a number of crimes, but not for sodomy. It specified that "every other felony, misdemeanor, or offence not provided for by this act, may and shall be punished as heretofore[.]" At the time, Maryland and Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for committing sodomy. It went into effect in March 2, 1831.[101]
Benjamin Harrison[edit]
Presidency
In 1892, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that states that "for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of property within the District of Columbia." Labeled in the law as vagrants were "all public prostitutes, and all such persons who lead a notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life[.]" All offenders had to post bond of up to $200 for good behavior for a period of six months. The law went into effect on July 29, 1892.[101]
William McKinley[edit]
Presidency
In 1898, Congress deleted the word "notoriously" from the provision concerning a lewd or lascivious course of life, thereby allowing prosecution of persons without the condition of notoriety. The bond for good behavior was raised to $500, and the law was made gender-neutral. The law went into effect on July 8, 1898.[101]
In 1901, Congress adopted a new code for the District of Columbia that expressly recognized common-law crimes, with a penalty for them of up to five years and/or a $1,000 fine. The law went into effect on March 3, 1901.[101]
Woodrow Wilson[edit]
Presidency
On December 14, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson vetoed the Immigration Act of 1917, excluded individuals from entering the United States who were found "mentally defective" or who had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority." A similar Public Health Service definition of homosexuals was used simultaneously by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to reinforce the language of the Immigration Act of 1917 and effectively ban all homosexual immigrants who disclosed their sexual minority status. On February 5, 1917, the Congress overrode Wilson's veto, implementing the Immigration Act of 1917 into law.[104]
On March 1, 1917, the Articles of War of 1916 are implemented. This included a revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.[105]
On June 4, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a crime, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy.[105] It went into effect on February 4, 1921.[106]
Franklin Roosevelt[edit]
Assistant Secretary of the Navy
In 1919, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt requests an investigation into "vice and depravity" in the sea services, which launches a sting operation in which undercover operatives attempt to seduce sailors suspected of being homosexual. At least 17 sailors are jailed and court-martialed before public outcry prompts the Senate to condemn the operation.[105]
Presidency
In 1935, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that made it a crime for "any person to invite, entice, persuade, or to address for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading any person or persons...to accompany, to go with, to follow him or her to his or her residence, or to any other house or building, inclosure, or other place, for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose." It imposed a fine of up to $100, up to 90 days in jail, and courts were permitted to "impose conditions" on anyone convicted under this law, including "medical and mental examination, diagnosis and treatment by proper public health and welfare authorities, and such other terms and conditions as the court may deem best for the protection of the community and the punishment, control, and rehabilitation of the defendant." The law went into effect on August 14, 1935.[101]
In 1941, Congress enacted a new solicitation law for the District of Columbia that labeled a "vagrant" any person who "engages in or commits acts of fornication or perversion for hire." The law went into effect on December 17, 1941.[101]
Harry Truman[edit]
Presidency
In 1948, Congress enacted the first sodomy law in the District of Columbia, which established a penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000 for sodomy. Also included with this sodomy law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." The law went into effect on June 9, 1948.[101]
On May 5, 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence."[105]
On June 25, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was vetoed by President Truman because he regarded the bill as "un-American" and discriminatory. The bill prohibits "aliens afflicted with a psychopathic personality, epilepsy, or a mental defect" from entry into the United States.[107][108][109] Congress would later override his veto and implemented the act into law.[104]
Dwight Eisenhower[edit]
Presidency
On April 27, 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower signs Executive Order 10450 which prohibits Federal employees from being members of a group or organization considered subversive. The order lists "sexual perversion" as a security risk constituting grounds for termination or denial of employment. The order went into effect on May 27, 1953.[105]
Without explicitly referring to homosexuality, the executive order responded to several years of charges that the presence of homosexual employees in the State Department posed blackmail risks. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. explained that the new order was designed to encompass both loyalty and security risks and he differentiated between the two: "Employees could be a security risk and still not be disloyal or have any traitorous thoughts, but it may be that their personal habits are such that they might be subject to blackmail by people who seek to destroy the safety of our country."[110]
The press recognized the revolutionary nature of the new executive order. The Washington Post said that it established not a loyalty test but a "suitability test." Some in government referred to their new "integrity-security" program. Some of those the press expected to be excluded from federal employment included "a person who drinks too much," "an incorrigible gossip," "homosexuals," and "neurotics."[110]
In 1953, Congress changed the solicitation law in the District of Columbia so that the jail term of up to 90 days was retained, but the maximum fine was raised to $250, and the reference to the power of judges to "impose conditions" on the defendant was removed. The law went into effect on June 29, 1953.[101]
Lyndon B. Johnson[edit]
Senator of Texas
On February 2, 1950, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson voted for Uniform Code of Military Justice.[111]
Presidency
On October 19, 1964, Walter Jenkins, a longtime top aide to President Johnson, had been arrested by District of Columbia Police in a YMCA restroom. He and another man were booked on a disorderly conduct charge.[112]
In October 1964, Johnson released a statement of sympathy for Jenkins who "has worked with me faithfully for 25 years, with dedication, devotion and tireless labor" He also fed conspiracy theories that Jenkins had been framed. He claimed that before his arrest Jenkins had attended a cocktail party where the waiters came from the Republican National Committee, though the party was hosted by Newsweek to celebrate the opening of its new offices.[113] Johnson told Fortas that Jenkins needed to resign. On October 14, 1964, Jenkins resigned. Johnson immediately ordered a poll to determine the public's reaction to the affair and learned the next day that its effect on the voters was negligible.[114]
Johnson's Republican opponent in the 1964 presidential election, Barry Goldwater, knew Jenkins from the Senate and from serving as commanding officer of his Air Force Reserve unit, but initially denied knowing him.[115] He did not comment on the incident while campaigning, though it fit well with the charges he had been making of a lack of morality in Johnson's administration, though he was referring to Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes.[116] Instead, since FBI agents had just questioned him about Jenkins, he publicly asked Hoover to explain why Jenkins had not undergone a rigorous security check before joining the White House staff.[117]
Goldwater's campaign offices distributed bumper stickers and buttons bearing slogans such as, "LBJ - LIGHT BULB JENKINS: NO WONDER HE TURNED THE LIGHTS OUT" and "ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ, BUT DON'T GO NEAR THE YMCA". During the remainder of the campaign Goldwater occasionally alluded to the scandal. In speeches he referred to Johnson's "curious crew who would run the country" to the knowing amusement of his audience.[118] At the time, observers noted the difference between the way Goldwater alluded to the scandal and the way the Republican National Committee and Goldwater's running mate, William E. Miller, used it to exploit "popular fears."[119] Goldwater later said he chose not to make the incident a campaign issue. "It was a sad time for Jenkins' wife and children, and I was not about to add to their private sorrow," he wrote in his autobiography. "Winning isn't everything. Some things, like loyalty to friends or lasting principle, are more important."
Campaigning in San Diego on October 28, 1964, Johnson told reporters that "President Eisenhower had the same type of problem with his appointments secretary. The only difference is, we Democrats felt sorry for him and thought it was a case of sickness and disease, and we didn't try to capitalize on a man's misfortune. We never mentioned it."[120][121][122]
After the election, the American Mental Health Foundation wrote a letter to President Johnson protesting the "hysteria" surrounding the case:[123]
The private life and inclinations of a citizen, Government employee or not, does not necessarily have any bearing on his capacities, usefulness, and sense of responsibility in his occupation. The fact that an individual is homosexual, as has been strongly implied in the case of Mr. Jenkins, does not per se make him more unstable and more a security risk than any heterosexual person.
On October 3, 1965, Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which added "sexual deviation" as a medical ground for denying prospective immigrants entry into the United States. The bill went into effect on June 30, 1968.[104]
In 1966, Johnson still insisted vehemently in private that the Jenkins arrest resulted from a GOP frame-up and "someday we will prove it."[120]
Richard Nixon[edit]
Presidency
In August 1970, Richard Nixon, on the issue of same-sex marriage, said "I can't go that far; that's the year 2000! Negroes [and whites], okay. But that's too far!"[124]
On May 13, 1971, in a conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman:

"Archie's Guys." Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. The son-in-law apparently goes both ways. This guy. He's obviously queer--wears an ascot--but not offensively so. Very clever. Uses nice language. Shows pictures of his parents. And so Arch goes down to the bar. Sees his best friend, who used to play professional football. Virile, strong, this and that. Then the fairy comes into the bar. I don't mind the homosexuality. I understand it. Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddammit, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.
—Richard Nixon, [125]

You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France. Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
—Richard Nixon, [125]

But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.
—Richard Nixon, [125]
In 1972, San Francisco's Gay Activists Alliance disbanded and formed the Gay Voter's League, a group that campaigned for the reelection of President Richard Nixon.[126] In October 1972, representative of the Committee to Re-elect the President addressed gay voters on behalf of Richard M. Nixon's campaign in San Francisco. The event was organized by the Gay Voters League of San Francisco.[127]
Gerald Ford[edit]
House Minority Leader and Representative of Michigan's 5th congressional district
On August 25, 1965, Rep. Gerald Ford voted for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.[128]
Presidency
On March 5, 1976, when asked about the issue of gay rights, with respect to hiring, employment, and housing, Gerald Ford said "I recognize that this is a very new and serious problem in our society. I have always tried to be an understanding person as far as people are concerned who are different than myself. That doesn't mean that I agree with or would concur in what is done by them or their position in society. I think this is a problem we have to face up to, and I can't give you a pat answer tonight. I just would be dishonest to say that there is a pat answer under these very difficult circumstances"[129]
In 1976, during that year's presidential campaign, President Gerald Ford was "zapped" by activists in Ann Arbor, Michigan over federal immigration rules. The protests forced President Ford to admit that he was not aware that homosexuality was used as a basis for exclusion in immigration rulings.[126]
Post presidency
Gerald Ford, as former president, formally opposed the Briggs Initiative in 1977, which sought to ban homosexuals from teaching in public school. In October 2001, he broke with conservative members of the Republican party by stating that gay and lesbian couples "ought to be treated equally. Period." He became the highest ranking Republican to embrace full equality for gays and lesbians, stating his belief that there should be a federal amendment outlawing anti-gay job discrimination and expressing his hope that the Republican Party would reach out to gay and lesbian voters.[130] He also was a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, which The New York Times described as "a group of prominent Republicans, including former President Gerald R. Ford, dedicated to making sexual orientation a non-issue in the Republican Party".[131]
Jimmy Carter[edit]
Post governorship of Georgia
In February 1976, Carter said he opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but in June 1976 he withdrew his support of a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.[132]
Presidency
In 1977, under the guidance of Jimmy Carter, a policy was removed which barred employment of gays from employment in the foreign service and Internal Revenue Service ended its policy that forced LGBT education and charity groups to publicly state that homosexuality is a "sickness, disturbance, or diseased pathology." That same year, fourteen gay and lesbian activists were invited to the White House for the first official visit ever. Jimmy Carter publicly opposed the Briggs Initiative. However, in March 1980, Carter issued a formal statement indicating he would not issue an executive order banning anti-gay discrimination in the US federal government and that he would not support including a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.[132][133]
Post presidency
In 2004, Carter came out for civil unions and stated that he "opposes all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and believes there should be equal protection under the law for people who differ in sexual orientation".[134] In 2007, he called for ending the ban on gays in the military.[135] In March 2012, Jimmy Carter came out in favor of same sex marriage.[136]
Ronald Reagan[edit]
Main article: Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration § LGBT_Rights
Post governorship of California
The first chapter of what would become the national Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) formed in 1978 to fight California's Briggs Initiative, a ballot initiative that would have banned homosexuals from teaching in public schools. The chapter worked diligently and successfully convinced Governor Reagan to publicly oppose the measure.[126] Reagan penned an op-ed against the Briggs Initiative in which he wrote, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."[137]
Presidency
On the 1980 campaign trail, he spoke of the gay civil rights movement:

My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn't just asking for civil rights; it's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.[138]
No civil rights legislation for LGBT individuals passed during Reagan's tenure. Additionally, Reagan has been criticized by some LGBT groups for allegedly ignoring (by failing to adequately address or fund) the growing AIDS epidemic, even as it took thousands of lives in the 1980s. Reagan's Surgeon General from 1982-1989, Dr. C. Everett Koop, claims that his attempts to address the issue were shut out by the Reagan Administration. According to Koop, the prevailing view of the Reagan Administration was that "transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs" and therefore that people dying from AIDS were "only getting what they justly deserve."[139]
In 1981, during Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party, White House interior decorator, Ted Graber, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case.[137]
George H. W. Bush[edit]
Vice presidency
In 1988, the Republican Party's nominee, Vice President George H. W. Bush, endorsed a plan to protect persons with AIDS from discrimination.[126]
Presidency
As President, George H. W. Bush signed legislation that extended gay rights. On April 23, 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed because of the victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. It was the first federal statute to "recognize and name gay, lesbian and bisexual people."[140] On July 26, 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. On November 29, 1990, Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which withdrew the phrase "sexual deviation" from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that it could no longer be used as a basis for barring entry of immigration to the U.S. for homosexuals.[126]
In a television interview, Bush said if he found out his grandchild was gay, he would "love his child", but tell him homosexuality wasn't normal and discourage him from working for gay rights. In February 1992, the chairman of the Bush-Quayle campaign met with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.[132] In May 1992, he appointed Anne-Imelda Radice to serve as the Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.[141] Losing ground in the 1992 Republican president primary to President Bush's far-right challenger, Pat Buchanan, the Bush campaign turned to the right, and President Bush publicly denounced same-sex marriage.[142] The 1992 Log Cabin Republican convention was held in Spring, Texas, a Houston exurb. The main issue discussed was whether or not LCR would endorse the re-election of President George H. W. Bush. The group voted to deny that endorsement because Bush did not denounce anti-gay rhetoric at the 1992 Republican National Convention.[143] Many in the gay community believed President Bush hadn't had done enough on the issue of AIDS. Urvashi Vaid argues that Bush's anti-gay rhetoric "motivated conservative gay Democrats and loyal gay Republicans, who had helped defeat Dukakis in 1988, to throw their support behind Clinton."[132]
In 1992, the City Council passed the "The Health Benefits Expansion Act", which was signed into law by the Mayor of Washington, D.C. The bill, which established domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia, became law on June 11, 1992. Every year from 1992 to 2000, the Republican leadership of the U.S. Congress added a rider to the District of Columbia appropriations bill that prohibited the use of federal or local funds to implement the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act.[144] On October 5, 1992, Bush signed the H.R. 6056 into law, which included the Republican rider to the appropriations bill.[145]
Post presidency
In 2013, former President George H. W. Bush served as a witness at a same-sex wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, who own a general store together in Maine.[146] In 2015 the Boston Globe reported that Bush "offered to perform the ceremony but had a scheduling conflict."[147]
Bill Clinton[edit]
Governorship of Arkansas
In 1992, Governor Bill Clinton, as a candidate for President, issued a public statement of support for repeal of Arkansas's sodomy law.[148] Also in 1992, the Human Rights Campaign, American's largest LGBT rights organization, issued its first presidential endorsement in 1992 to Bill Clinton.[149]
Presidency
Bill Clinton's legacy on gay rights is a matter of controversy. LGBT rights activist Richard Socarides credits Clinton as the first President to publicly champion gay rights,[149] but Clinton's signing of DOMA and DADT have led critics like Andrew Sullivan to argue Clinton was a detriment to rather than an ally for the LGBT rights movement.[150]
In December 1993, Clinton implemented a Department of Defense directive known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which allowed gay men and women to serve in the armed services provided they kept their sexuality a secret, and forbade the military from inquiring about an individual's sexual orientation.[151] The policy was developed as a compromise after Clinton's proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military met with staunch opposition from prominent Congressional Republicans and Democrats, including Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Sam Nunn (D-GA). According to David Mixner, Clinton's support for the compromise led to a heated dispute with Vice President Al Gore, who felt that "the President should lift the ban ... even though [his executive order] was sure to be overriden by the Congress".[152] Some gay-rights advocates criticized Clinton for not going far enough and accused him of making his campaign promise to get votes and contributions.[153] Their position was that Clinton should have integrated the military by executive order, noting that President Harry Truman used executive order to racially desegregate the armed forces. Clinton's defenders argue that an executive order might have prompted the Senate to write the exclusion of gays into law, potentially making it harder to integrate the military in the future.[154] Later in his presidency, in 1999, Clinton criticized the way the policy was implemented, saying he did not think any serious person could say it was not "out of whack".[155]
On September 21, 1996, Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as the legal union of one man and one woman, allowing individual states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.[156] Paul Yandura, speaking for the White House gay and lesbian liaison office, said that Clinton's signing of DOMA "was a political decision that they made at the time of a re-election." In defense of his actions, Clinton has said that DOMA was an attempt to "head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states", a possibility he described as highly likely in the context of a "very reactionary Congress."[157] Administration spokesman Richard Socarides said, "... the alternatives we knew were going to be far worse, and it was time to move on and get the president re-elected."[158] Others were more critical. The veteran gay rights and gay marriage activist Evan Wolfson has called these claims "historic revisionism".[158] In a July 2, 2011 editorial The New York Times opined, "The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 as an election-year wedge issue, signed by President Bill Clinton in one of his worst policy moments."[159]
Despite DOMA, Clinton, who was the first President to select openly gay persons for Administration positions,[160] is generally credited as the first President to publicly champion gay rights.[149] During his Presidency, Clinton controversially issued two substantial executive orders on behalf of gay rights, the first was in 1995 that lifted the ban on security clearances for LGBT federal employees[161] and the second was in 1998 that outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce.[162] Under President Clinton's leadership, federal funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention and treatment more than doubled.[163] And Clinton also pushed for passing hate crimes laws for gays and for the private sector Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which, buoyed by his lobbying, failed to pass the Senate by a single vote in 1996.[164] Advocacy for these issues, paired with the politically unpopular nature of the gay rights movement at the time, led to enthusiastic support for Clinton's reelection in 1996 by the Human Rights Campaign.[149]
Clinton was the first President to select openly gay persons for Administration positions, appointing over 150 LGBT appointees.[165] The first openly gay US ambassador, James Hormel, received a recess appointment from the President after the Senate failed to confirm the nomination.
On June 2, 2000, Clinton declared June to be Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, the first president to do so.[166]
Post presidency
In 2008, Clinton publicly opposed the passage of California's Proposition 8 and recorded robocalls urging Californians to vote against it.[167] In July 2009, he came out in favor of same-sex marriage.[168] On March 7, 2013, Clinton called for the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act by the US Supreme Court.[169]
George W. Bush[edit]
In 1994, Bush pledged to veto any effort to repeal Texas's sodomy law, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values."[170]
Governor of Texas
In 1997, Governor Bush signed into law a bill adding "A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex" into the Texas Family Code.[171]
In a 1998 Texas Gubernatorial election political awareness test, he answered no to the questions of whether Texas government should include sexual orientation in Texas' anti-discrimination laws and whether he supports Texas recognizing same-sex marriage.[172]
In 1999, the Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, which would have increased punishment for criminals motivated by hatred of a victim's gender, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation, was killed in committee by Texas Senate Republicans. Governor Bush was criticized for letting the hate crimes bill die in a Texas Senate committee. Bush spokesman Sullivan said the governor never took a position on the bill. According to Louvon Harris, sister of James Byrd, said that Bush's opposition to the bill reportedly revolved around the fact that it would cover gays and lesbians. The governor's office "contacted the family and asked if we would consider taking sexual orientation out of the bill, and our answer was no, because the bill is for everybody. Everybody should be protected by the law." said Harris. In a 2000 presidential debate, Al Gore would attack Bush for allowing the bill to die in committee, with Bush responding Texas already had a hate crimes statute, and nothing more was needed.[170] George W. Bush also stated his opposition New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said the Boy Scouts of America must accept gays in their organization. "I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization and they should be able to set the standards that they choose to set," Bush said.[173] Bush would also express his support for bans on gay foster parenting and adoption.[174]
During the 2000 campaign he did not endorse a single piece of gay rights legislation. In a 2000 Republican presidential debate, George W. Bush, said he opposes same-sex marriage, but supports state's rights when it came to the issue of same-sex marriage. During the campaign he had refused to comment on Vermont's civil unions law.[173] On April 13, 2000, Governor Bush became first presumptive GOP presidential nominee ever to meet publicly with gay Republicans in Austin, Texas.[175] On August 4, 2000, Bush received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, the GOP's largest gay group, for president.[176] He also received the endorsement of the newly formed Republican Unity Coalition.[176][177] In a 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush stated he supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. However, he stated that he opposed sodomy laws, a reversal of his position as governor of Texas.[173][178][179]
Presidency
George W. Bush was either neutral towards or opposed gay rights as president. In his eight years of office, Bush's views on gay rights were often difficult to ascertain, but many experts feel that the Bush White House wanted to avoid bad publicity without alienating evangelical conservative Christian voters. Thus, he did not repeal President Clinton's Executive Order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the federal civilian government, but Bush's critics felt as if he failed to enforce the executive order.[180] He retained Clinton's Office of National AIDS Policy and was the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration, Scott Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy.[181] Bush also became the second President, after President Clinton, to select openly gay appointees to his administration. Bush's nominee as ambassador to Romania, Michael E. Guest, became the second openly gay man U.S. Ambassador and the first to be confirmed by the Senate. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for same-sex federal employees. He did not attempt to repeal Don't ask, don't tell, nor make an effort to change it.[173]
In April 2002, White House officials held an unannounced briefing in April for the Log Cabin Republicans. On June 27, 2002, President Bush has signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to domestic partners of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty, permanently extending a federal death benefit to same-sex couples for the first time.[182]
In 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws against consenting adults was unconstitutional. President Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer refused to comment on the decision, noting only that the administration had not filed a brief in the case.[183] In 2004, Bush said "What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do,"[184]
Previously Bush said he state's rights when it came to marriage, however, after Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, on February 24, 2004, Bush announced his support for an amendment to the US Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[185] Due to his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Log Cabin Republicans declined to endorse the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004.[143] Bush's defense of the FMA led the group to vote 22 to 2 against an endorsement of his reelection.[186] The Palm Beach County chapter in Florida did endorse him, resulting in the revocation of their charter.[187] On September 22, 2004, the Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus (ALBRC), a group of young urban Black gay Republicans, voted in a special call meeting in Dallas, Texas, to endorse President Bush for re-election.[188] In an October president debate, Bush said he didn't know whether homosexuality is a choice or not.[173]
In 2007, Bush threatened to veto the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which would have included sexual orientation in hate crimes, and Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007.
In December 2008, the Bush administration refused to support the U.N. declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity at the United Nations that condemns the use of violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.[189]
Post presidency
In his post presidency interviews, he refused to take a position on the issue of same-sex marriage.[190][191]
Barack Obama[edit]
Illinois state senator
Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996.[192] When he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998, was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage and supported including sexual orientation to the states non-discrimination laws.[193][194] During his time as a state senator he cosponsored of a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protections for LGBT people which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, housing, and all public places and supported Illinois gender violence act.
US Senator from Illinois
Obama supported civil unions, but opposed same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[192] He supports civil unions that would carry equal legal standing to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believes that decisions about the title of marriage should be left to the states.[195][196]
During his time as senator, Obama co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, and Early Treatment for HIV Act.[197][198]
In the 109th United States Congress, Obama received a score of 89% by the Human Rights Campaign.[198]
In 2006, Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the US Constitution.[199]
In 2007, Senator Obama said he opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't ask, don't tell policy when it passed and supported repealing it. He also said that homosexuality is not a choice, support adoption rights for same-sex couples, and would work as president to extend the 1,000 federal rights granted to marriage couples to couples in civil unions. He also voted for Kennedy Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the victim's sexual orientation and gender identity and the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act.[194][197]
In the 2008 presidential election, he expressed his opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in California, and Florida on the November ballot,[200][201][202] but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believes that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[203] In the 110th United States Congress, Obama received a score of 94% by the Human Rights Campaign.[198] In the 2008 election, Obama received the endorsement of the following gay rights organizations: Houston GLBT Political Caucus,[204] Human Rights Campaign,[205] and the National Stonewall Democrats.[206][207]
Presidency
President Barack Obama has taken many definitive pro-LGBT rights stances. In 2009, his administration reversed Bush administration policy and signed the U.N. declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality.[208] In June 2009, Obama became the first president to declare the month of June to be LGBT pride month; President Clinton had declared June Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.[166][209] Obama did so again in June 2010,[210] June 2011,[211] June 2012,[212] June 2013,[213] June 2014,[214] and June 2015.[215]
On October 28, 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability to the federal hate crimes law.[216]
In October 2009, he nominated Sharon Lubinski to become the first openly gay U.S. marshal to serve the Minnesota district.[217] On January 4, 2010, he appointed Amanda Simpson the Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce, making her the first openly transgender person appointed to a government post by a U.S. President.[218][219][220] He has appointed the most U.S. gay and lesbian officials of any U.S. president.[221]
At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On April 15, 2010, Obama issued an executive order to the Department of Health and Human Services that required medical facilities to grant visitation and medical decision-making rights to same-sex couples.[222] In June 2010, he expanded the Family Medical Leave Act to cover employees taking unpaid leave to care for the children of same-sex partners.[223] On December 22, 2010, Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law.[224]
On February 23, 2011, President Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.[225]
In March 2011, the U.S. issued a nonbinding declaration in favor of gay rights that gained the support of more than 80 countries at the U.N.[226] In June 2011, the U.N. endorsed the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people for the first time, by passing a resolution that was backed by the U.S., among other countries.[226]
In March and April 2012, Obama expressed his opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in North Carolina, and Minnesota.[227]
On May 9, 2012, Obama publicly supported same-sex marriage, the first sitting U.S. President to do so. Obama told an interviewer that:[228]

over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.
In the 2012 election, Obama received the endorsement of the following gay rights organizations: Equal Rights Washington, Fair Wisconsin, Gay-Straight Alliance,[229][230] Human Rights Campaign,[231] and the National Stonewall Democrats. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) gave Obama a score of 100% on the issue of gays and lesbians in the US military and a score of 75% on the issue of freedom to marry for gay people.[232]
Obama also called for full equality during his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." It was the first mention of rights for gays and lesbians or use of the word gay in an inaugural address.[233][234]
On March 1, 2013, Obama, speaking about Hollingsworth v. Perry, the U.S. Supreme Court case about Proposition 8, said "When the Supreme Court asks do you think that the California law, which doesn't provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they're same-sex couples—if the Supreme Court asks me or my attorney general or solicitor general, 'Do we think that meets constitutional muster?' I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly. And the answer is no." The administration took the position that the Supreme Court should apply "heightened scrutiny" to California's ban—a standard under which legal experts say no state ban could survive.[235]
On August 8, 2013, Obama criticized Russia's anti-gay law.[236]
On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 into law, which repealed the ban on consensual sodomy in the UCMJ.[237] On February 16, 2014, Obama criticized Uganda's anti-gay law.[238]
Obama included openly gay athletes in the February 2014 Olympic delegation, namely Brian Boitano and Billie Jean King (who was replaced by Caitlin Cahow, who was also openly gay.) [239][240] This was done in criticism of Russia's anti-gay law.[240]
On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce and both "sexual orientation" and gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors.[68]
Obama was also criticized for meeting with the anti-gay Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni at a dinner with African heads of state in August 2014.[241]
Later in August 2014 Obama made a surprise video appearance at the opening ceremony of the 2014 Gay Games.[242][243]
In 2015 the United States appointed Randy Berry as its first Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons.[244]
Also in 2015 the Obama administration announced it had opened a gender-neutral bathroom within the White House complex; the bathroom is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next door to the West Wing.[245]
Also in 2015, President Obama responded to a petition seeking to ban conversion therapy (inspired by the death of Leelah Alcorn) with a pledge to advocate for such a ban.[246]
Also in 2015, when President Obama declared May to be National Foster Care Month, he included words never before included in a White House proclamation about adoption, stating in part, "With so many children waiting for loving homes, it is important to ensure all qualified caregivers have the opportunity to serve as foster or adoptive parents, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. That is why we are working to break down the barriers that exist and investing in efforts to recruit more qualified parents for children in foster care." Thus it appears he is the first president to explicitly say gender identity should not prevent anyone from adopting or becoming a foster parent.[247]
Democratic Party[edit]
The Democratic Party's 2012 national platform opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and supports "equal responsibility, benefits, and protections" for same-sex couples,[248] and explicitly supports same-sex marriage.[249]
National Stonewall Democrats[edit]
Main article: National Stonewall Democrats
Republican Party[edit]
The Republican Party's 2012 platform opposes any legal recognition of same sex couples, supports a ban on same-sex marriage through a federal constitutional amendment, along with state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.[250] However, Fred Karger's unsuccessful run for the 2012 Republican nomination for President made him America's first openly gay Republican presidential candidate.[251]
Log Cabin Republicans[edit]
Main article: Log Cabin Republicans
Created in 1977 in California, in response to the anti-gay Briggs Initiative, which attempted to ban homosexuals from teaching in public schools. Log Cabin Republicans support full equal rights for LGBT people, including Employment Nondiscrimination Act and same-sex marriage.
GOProud[edit]
Main article: GOProud
GOProud is a gay conservative organization founded in 2009. GOProud supports repealing DOMA, supports same-sex marriage, and believes marriage should be left to the states. GOProud also has no official position on Employment Nondiscrimination Act or hate-crime legislation.
Libertarian Party[edit]
Main article: Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights § United States Libertarian Party
The Libertarian Party has endorsed libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights and has promoted marriage equality since it was created in 1971. The Libertarian Party also wishes to lift the bans on same-sex marriage, but with the ultimate goal of marriage privatization.[252]
In 1972 John Hospers of the Libertarian Party became the first openly gay man to run for president of the United States, as well as the Libertarian party's first presidential candidate.[253]
Outright Libertarians[edit]
Main article: Outright Libertarians
Constitution Party[edit]
Main article: Constitution Party (United States)
The Constitution Party (United States) is strongly opposed to all forms of gay rights including legal bans on homosexual consent. The party is very conservative and has ties to Christian Reconstructionism, a political movement within Conservative Christian Churches.
Other political parties[edit]
While many American socialist and communist political parties initially preferred to ignore the issue, most now support gay rights causes. Socialist groups generally integrate a stronger approach to gender identity issues than mainstream parties.
Lavender Greens[edit]
While many American socialist and communist political parties initially preferred to ignore the issue, most now support gay rights causes. The Socialist Party USA was the first party to nominate an openly gay man, David McReynolds, as its Presidential candidate in 1980. Socialist groups generally integrate a stronger approach to gender identity issues than mainstream parties.
Summary table of LGBT rights goals in the United States[edit]
Same-sex sexual activity legal Yes (Since 2003 nationwide) [254]
Equal age of consent for same-sex couples as for heterosexual couples Yes/No
Homosexuality declassified as an illness Yes (Since 1973) [255]
Transgender declassified as an illness Yes (Since 2012) [256]
Conjugal visits allowed for same-sex couples Yes/No
Conversion therapy banned by law Yes/No
Gay panic and trans panic defenses banned by law Yes/No
Sexual orientation allowed as grounds for asylum Yes (Since 1994 [257][258])
Gender identity allowed as grounds for asylum Yes/No
Federal hate-crime law includes crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity Yes (Since 2009) [259]
Ban on police profiling on the basis of both perceived and/or actual gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation Yes/No
LGBT anti-bullying law in public schools and public colleges Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in adoption, custody, and visitation rights Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in employment Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in health insurance Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in homeless shelters Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in housing Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in prisons, juvenile halls, and immigration detention centers, including but not limited to transgender people required to be housed according to their gender identity Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in provision of goods and services Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in public accommodations, public facilities, and public transportation Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in public hospitals Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in public schools and public colleges Yes/No
LGBT-inclusive sex education required to be taught in public schools Yes/No
Same-sex marriage Yes/No
Step-child adoption by same-sex couples Yes/No
Joint adoption by same-sex couples Yes/No
Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals allowed to serve openly in the military Yes (Since 2011) [260]
Transgender people allowed to serve openly in the military No
Intersex individuals allowed to join the military No [261]
Right to change legal gender without requirement of surgery Yes/ No
Sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people required to be covered under health insurance Yes/No
Transgender-disenfranchising[262][263][264] photo-ID voting laws repealed/absent Yes/No
Transgender people allowed to use restrooms, lockers, and other gender-segregated spaces that correspond to their gender identity Yes/No
LGBTI-specific training requirement for medical professionals No
Commercial surrogacy for gay male couples Yes/No
MSMs allowed to donate blood and tissues not considered lifesaving No
United States census counts number of lesbian, gay male, bisexual, and transgender people No
See also[edit]

Portal icon LGBT portal
Portal icon United States portal
Same-sex marriage in the United States
LGBT rights in the Americas
LGBT rights by country or territory
Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States
LGBT movements in the United States
LGBT history in the United States
LGBT history#United States of America
Bisexuality in the United States
Gay men in American history
History of bisexuality
History of lesbianism
History of lesbianism in the United States
History of the Transgender Community in the United States
Sodomy laws in the United States
History of violence against LGBT people in the United States
List of proposed anti-gay book bans in the United States
Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida — anti-gay pamphlet published by the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee in 1964
Save Our Children - 1977-78 anti-gay campaign in Florida led by Anita Bryant
Federal Marriage Amendment
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Empowering Spirits Foundation
Gay Blue Jeans Day
Gay pride
Human Rights Campaign
Human rights in the United States
Bibliography[edit]
Bullough, Vern, "When Did the Gay Rights Movement Begin?", April 18, 2005. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
Bullough, Vern L. (ed.) Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Harrington Park Press, 2002.
Gallagher, John & Chris Bull, Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, 1996, Crown, 300 pp. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
Matzner, Andrew, "Stonewall Riots", glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, & Queer Culture, Claude J. Summers, ed. 2004. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
Percy, William A. & William Edward Glover, "Before Stonewall by Glover & Percy", November 5, 2005. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ McBride, Alex. "Lawrence v Texas (2003)". PBS. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
2.Jump up ^ "Freedom To Marry". Freedom to Marry. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
3.Jump up ^ "Employment Non-Discrimination Laws on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Hrc.org. Retrieved April 26, 2011.[dead link]
4.Jump up ^ "Facts about Discrimination in Federal Government Employment Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, Sexual Orientation, or Transgender (Gender Identity) Status". United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
5.Jump up ^ "LGBT Adoption Statistics". Lifelong Adoptions. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
6.Jump up ^ "What We Do". Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
7.Jump up ^ "Trial". Hawaiigaymarriage.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
8.Jump up ^ Goldberg, Carey (December 4, 1996). "Hawaii Judge Ends Gay-Marriage Ban". New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Dickler, Jessica (November 2, 2004). "Prenups aren't just for married couples anymore". CNN. Retrieved March 30, 2012.
10.Jump up ^ Chang-Muy, Fernando (2009). Social Work with Immigrants and Refugees. Springer Publishing Company, LLC. Retrieved August 12, 2011.
11.Jump up ^ "Network Audience". State of the Media. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
12.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court / Homosexuality and Women's Pensions Cases / Bakke / Protests NBC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive". Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu. October 3, 1977. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
13.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court / Homosexuality Case / Nixon Tapes / Other Cases To Come CBS News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive". Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu. October 3, 1977. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
14.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court / Washington Homosexual Firing / Bakke / Other Cases ABC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive". Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu. October 3, 1977. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
15.Jump up ^ http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/orgs/glstn/teachers.legal.rights. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)
16.Jump up ^ Supreme Court Hears Debate on Law Banning Gay Teachers Aaron Epstein, Bangor Daily News, January 15, 1985 Accessed via Google News Archive Search July 6, 2012
17.Jump up ^ Board of Education v. National Gay Task Force, 470 U.S. 159 (1985)
18.Jump up ^ Justices Affirm Ruling Upholding Gay Teachers' Rights Phil Hager, Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1985, accessed via latimes.com July 6, 2012
19.Jump up ^ Wiessler, Judy (April 2, 1985), "Texas A&M loses legal fight against gay student group", Houston Chronicle: Section 1, page 1, retrieved October 28, 2009
20.Jump up ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)
21.Jump up ^ ""Sodomy Laws in the United States," Gay and Lesbian Archives of the Pacific Northwest, accessed 8 July 2011". Glapn.org. November 23, 2007. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
22.Jump up ^ "Raleigh police press sodomy charges | newsobserver.com projects". Projects.newsobserver.com. May 27, 2008. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
23.Jump up ^ ""Prosecutors Drop Sodomy Charges," Raleigh News and Observer, 30 May 2008". Projects.newsobserver.com. May 30, 2008. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
24.Jump up ^ Tim Murphy (April 12, 2011). "Murphy, Tim. "The Unconstitutional Anti-Gay Law That Just Won't Die," Mother Jones, 13 April 2011". Motherjones.com. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
25.Jump up ^ Robert Barnes (June 26, 2013). "Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act". Washington Post. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
26.Jump up ^ Supreme Court of the United States (June 26, 2013). "United States v. Windsor" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
27.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court decisions: Kitchen v. Herbert ruling". Los Angeles Times. June 25, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
28.^ Jump up to: a b Latta v. Otter, No. 13-482, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417, at *22-29, 2014 WL 1909999, at * 7-10 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014)
29.Jump up ^ https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/indiana_order.pdf
30.Jump up ^ DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-10285, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274, at *46, n.6, 2014 WL 1100794, at *17, n.6 (E.D. Mich. March 21, 2014)
31.^ Jump up to: a b c d http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf
32.Jump up ^ Bishop v. U.S. ex rel. Holder, 962. F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1274-77 (N.D. Okla. 2014)
33.Jump up ^ Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 13-1834, 2014 U.S. Dist LEXIS 68171 (D. Oregon May 19, 2014)
34.Jump up ^ De Leon v. Perry, No. 13-982, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *23-29, 2014 WL 715741, at *8-10 (W.D. Tex. February 26, 2014)
35.Jump up ^ Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1194-95 (D. Utah 2013)
36.Jump up ^ Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 469-70 (E.D. Va. 2014)
37.^ Jump up to: a b [1][dead link]
38.Jump up ^ "Gay marriage legal challenges: Where things stand". Washington Post. June 25, 2014. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
39.Jump up ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (May 2, 2013). "Rhode Island Joins States That Allow Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
40.Jump up ^ Jones, Tim (February 15, 2013). "Illinois Lawmakers Lead Midwest Toward Gay Marriage Law". Bloomberg. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
41.Jump up ^ Brueggemann, Brian. "SPRINGFIELD: They do: Illinois House approves same-sex marriage | Top Stories | News Democrat". Bnd.com. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
42.Jump up ^ Burnett, Sara. "Illinois Senate votes to legalize gay marriage - Peoria, IL". pjstar.com. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
43.Jump up ^ Esposito, Stefano; Schlickerman, Becky (February 21, 2014). "Gay marriages in Cook Co. don't have to wait, judge rules". Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved February 21, 2014.
44.Jump up ^ Manchir, Michelle (February 21, 2014). "Judge: Same sex couples can marry now in Cook County". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 21, 2014.
45.Jump up ^ http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital-records/reciprocal/index.html. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)[dead link]
46.Jump up ^ "With same-sex marriage now available, state to end benefits for domestic partners - Baltimore Sun". Articles.baltimoresun.com. May 3, 2013. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
47.Jump up ^ Clarke, John. "New Maryland law makes transgender discrimination illegal". Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved June 4, 2014.
48.Jump up ^ Walker, Andrea. "Bid to overturn Maryland transgender rights bill fails". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved June 4, 2014.
49.Jump up ^ (PDF) http://www.iandrinstitute.org/BW%202008-2%20%28Marriage%29.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)
50.Jump up ^ DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer (November 5, 2012). "Maine, Maryland vote to legalize gay marriage". seattlepi.com. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
51.Jump up ^ "Amendment banning gay marriage passes". USA Today. November 2, 2004. Retrieved October 12, 2007.
52.Jump up ^ "Voters pass all 11 bans on gay marriage". AP via MSNBC. November 3, 2004. Retrieved December 7, 2007.
53.Jump up ^ "Prop 8 ruling explained: Why gay marriage will resume in California. NBC June 26, 2013". Nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com. June 26, 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
54.Jump up ^ Savage, David G. (June 26, 2013). "Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California. LA Times June 26, 2013 Politics Now". Latimes.com. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
55.Jump up ^ Between the Lines of the the Proposition 8 Opinion. NY Times June 26 2013
56.Jump up ^ Dolan, Maura (June 28, 2013). "Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules". Latimes.com. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
57.Jump up ^ Davis, Don (November 7, 2012). "Minnesota voters reject marriage amendment". Duluth News Tribune. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
58.Jump up ^ "8 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 39 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans - Gay Marriage - ProCon.org". Gaymarriage.procon.org. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
59.Jump up ^ "Mom calls to lift ban on tissue donations from gay men". August 18, 2014. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
60.^ Jump up to: a b "Obama Widens Medical Rights for Gay Partners". The New York Times. April 16, 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2011.
61.Jump up ^ "Renter's Rights Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination – Findlaw for the Public". Public.findlaw.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
62.Jump up ^ Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586–626.
63.Jump up ^ Sexual Orientation and the Law § 5:17
64.Jump up ^ Purdum, Todd S. (August 4, 1995). "Clinton Ends Ban on Security Clearance for Gay Workers". New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
65.Jump up ^ "1998-05-28 Statement on Amendment to EEO Executive Order". May 5, 1998. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
66.^ Jump up to: a b "Facts about Discrimination in Federal Government Employment Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, Sexual Orientation, or Transgender (Gender Identity) Status". United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved December 7, 2013.
67.Jump up ^ Geidner, Chris (April 23, 2012). "Transgender Breakthrough". Metro Weekly. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
68.^ Jump up to: a b "Executive Order -- Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity". The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. July 21, 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
69.Jump up ^ "Obama signs edict banning discrimination against federal LGBT employees". Al Jazeera. July 21, 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
70.Jump up ^ Pershing, Ben (October 22, 2009). "Hate crimes bill set to become law". Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
71.Jump up ^ "President Barack Obama signs hate crimes legislation into law". Baywindows.com. October 28, 2009. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
72.^ Jump up to: a b c State Hate Crime Laws, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved May 4, 2007.
73.Jump up ^ Patrick Rodgers. "Conjugal Visits: Preserving family bonds behind bars". LegalZoom. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
74.Jump up ^ Branigin, William; Wilgoren, Debbi; Bacon Jr, Perry (December 22, 2010). "Obama signs DADT repeal before big, emotional crowd". Washington Post. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
75.Jump up ^ "In 60 days, gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military". CNN. July 23, 2011.
76.Jump up ^ "The New DADT: The Military's Ban on Transgender Service" by Katie Miller - OutServe Magazine, January 2012 http://outservemag.com/2012/01/the-new-dadt-the-militarys-ban-on-transgender-service/
77.Jump up ^ Same-sex activity had become legal in Illinois in 1962, Connecticut in 1971, Colorado and Oregon in 1972, Delaware and Hawaii in 1973, Massachusetts and Ohio in 1974, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota in 1975, California, Maine, Washington, and West Virginia in 1976, Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming in 1977, Nebraska in 1978, New Jersey in 1979, Alaska, New York, and Pennsylvania in 1980, Wisconsin in 1983, Kentucky in 1992, Nevada and District of Columbia in 1993, Tennessee in 1996, Montana in 1997, Georgia and Rhode Island in 1998, Maryland and Missouri (Western District counties only) in 1999, Arizona and Minnesota in 2001, and Arkansas in 2002
78.Jump up ^ State-sponsored Homophobia: A world survey of laws prohibiting same sex activity between consenting adults The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, authored by Lucas Paoli Itaborahy, May 2014
79.Jump up ^ "State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans". Equality Matters. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
80.Jump up ^ Ring, Trudy (April 19, 2013). "WATCH: Montana Sodomy Repeal Signed Into Law". The Advocate.
81.Jump up ^ "Reparations for gays and lesbians". Gay and Lesbian Times. Gaylesbiantimes.com. June 12, 2003. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
82.Jump up ^ Reparations for gays and lesbians[dead link]
83.Jump up ^ Craighill, Peyton (March 5, 2014). "Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right". The Washington Post (The Washington Post). Retrieved March 7, 2014.
84.Jump up ^ "Views on Voting and the Political Parties". The New York Times (The New York Times). Retrieved March 7, 2014.
85.Jump up ^ "Americans Favor Rights for Gays, Lesbians to Inherit, Adopt". December 12, 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
86.Jump up ^ "U.S. public opinion polls on same-sex marriage". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
87.Jump up ^ (04/06/09) (March 16, 2009). "A Third of Americans Back Same-Sex Marriage | Angus Reid Public Opinion". Angus-reid.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
88.Jump up ^ (04/13/06) (March 24, 2006). "Most New Yorkers Support Same-Sex Marriage | Angus Reid Public Opinion". Angus-reid.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
89.Jump up ^ (06/26/06) (June 19, 2006). "New Jersey Backs Same-Sex Marriage | Angus Reid Public Opinion". Angus-reid.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
90.Jump up ^ "Branstad, Braley lead in Iowa". Public Policy Polling. July 10, 2013. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
91.Jump up ^ Schneider, Bill. "Fresh Thinking". Third Way. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
92.Jump up ^ Craighill, Peyton M., Clement, Scott (March 5, 2014). "Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
93.Jump up ^ "Gay marriage support hits new high in Post-ABC poll". The Washington Post. March 18, 2013. Retrieved March 28, 2013.
94.Jump up ^ "Republican Party 2004 Platform" (PDF).
95.Jump up ^ "LDS Newsroom – Same-Gender Attraction". April 8, 2008. Retrieved April 8, 2008.
96.Jump up ^ "SBC Officially Opposes "Homosexual Marriage". The Southern Baptist Convention. July 26, 2003. Retrieved July 5, 2006.
97.Jump up ^ Schlatter, Evelyn, "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda", Intelligence Report, Winter 2010 (140), retrieved January 31, 2011
98.Jump up ^ Thomas Adam (2005). Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History ; a Multidisciplinary Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 1007.
99.Jump up ^ Alexander M. Bielakowski (2013). Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the U.S. Military: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 667–69.
100.Jump up ^ The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, Vol. 11, John C. Fitzpatrick, Ed., United States Government Printing Office, 1934.
101.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i "District of Columbia". Glapn.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
102.Jump up ^ "Amendment VIII: Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments". Press-pubs.uchicago.edu. Retrieved March 11, 2014.
103.Jump up ^ Patricia S. Ticer, State Senator (D-30) in the. "Virginia". Glapn.org. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
104.^ Jump up to: a b c "Opening the Doors of Immigration: Sexual Orientation and Asylum in the United States". Wcl.american.edu. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
105.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Key Dates in US Policy on Gay Men and Women in the United States Military". usni.org. Retrieved March 22, 2014.
106.Jump up ^ "The Articles of War". Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 2008-10-04. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
107.Jump up ^ Jacobson, David (September 5, 1997). Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 49–50. ISBN 978-0801857706.
108.Jump up ^ Tichenor, David J. (May 6, 2002). Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton Studies in American Politics. Princeton University Press. p. 195. ISBN 978-0691088051. "quotes part of this passage"
109.Jump up ^ Peters,Gerhard; Woolley, John T. "Harry S. Truman: "Veto of Bill To Revise the Laws Relating to Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality.," June 25, 1952". The American Presidency Project. University of California - Santa Barbara. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
110.^ Jump up to: a b David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: the Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 123-4. Eisenhower in his memoirs written years later explicitly referenced "instability, alcoholism, homosexuality."
111.Jump up ^ "HR 4080. UNITE, CONSOLIDATE, REVISE AND CLARIFY THE ARTICLES OF WAR, THE ARTICLES FOR THE GOV'T OF THE NAVY, AND THE DISCIPLINARY LAWS OF THE COAST GUARD, AND ENACT AND ESTABLISH A UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. MC CARRAN MOTION TO REFER TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE". Govtrack.us. February 2, 1950. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
112.Jump up ^ White, 367; TIME: "The Jenkins Report," October 30, 1964, accessed November 15, 2010
113.Jump up ^ White, 367. Dallek evaluates various claims that Jenkins was set up and dismisses them. Dallek, 180-1
114.Jump up ^ Thomas W. Benham, "Polling for a Presidential Candidate: Some Observations on the 1964 Campaign," in Public Opinion Quartery, v. 29 (1965), 192
115.Jump up ^ New York Times: "Goldwater Says Morality is Demanded by the Nation," October 15, 1964, accessed November 13, 2010
116.Jump up ^ Dallek, 178; White, 369
117.Jump up ^ New York Times: E.W. Kenworthy, "Goldwater Asks F.B.I. to Explain Check on Jenkins," October 20, 1964, accessed January 24, 2011
118.Jump up ^ Perlstein, 493
119.Jump up ^ New York Times:James Reston, "Washington: Barry Goldwater Examples of Morality," October 23, 2010, accessed November 13, 2010
120.^ Jump up to: a b "Lyndon Johnson on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
121.Jump up ^ Michael Beschloss, Reaching for Glory (NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 98
122.Jump up ^ Johnson's San Diego comment is discussed briefly at Evans and Novak, 481
123.Jump up ^ New York Times: "Jenkins Defended by Mental Group," October 22, 1964, accessed November 13, 2010
124.Jump up ^ Ehrlichman, John (January 1, 1982). Witness to Power: The Nixon Years. p. 239.
125.^ Jump up to: a b c "Nixon Tape Discusses Homosexuals at Bohemian Grove". Prisonplanet.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
126.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Republican Party (United States)". Glbtq.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
127.Jump up ^ "League due Nixon pitch". Connection.ebscohost.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
128.Jump up ^ "TO PASS H.R. 2580, THE AMENDED IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT". Govtrack.us. August 25, 1965. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
129.Jump up ^ "Gerald Ford on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
130.Jump up ^ Price, Deb. "Gerald Ford: Treat gay couples equally". The Detroit News, October 29, 2001. Retrieved December 28, 2006
131.Jump up ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Vocal Gay Republicans Upsetting Conservatives", The New York Times, June 1, 2003, p. N26.
132.^ Jump up to: a b c d Haider-Markel, Haider-Markel (2002). Gay and Lesbian Americans and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook.
133.Jump up ^ Shilts, Randy (1993). Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military.
134.Jump up ^ Carter backs civil unions for gay couples - Southern Voice Atlanta[dead link]
135.Jump up ^ Gaywired.com
136.Jump up ^ Raushenbush, Paul Brandeis (March 19, 2012). "President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 19, 2012. "I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies."
137.^ Jump up to: a b Dale Carpenter. "Reagan and Gays: A Reassessment". Igfculturewatch.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
138.Jump up ^ Shilts 2005: 368
139.Jump up ^ White, Allen (June 8, 2004). "Reagan AIDS Legacy/Silence equals death." San Francisco Gate
140.Jump up ^ Hate Crimes Protections Timeline, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Retrieved April 5, 2007.
141.Jump up ^ "Anne-Imelda M. Radice". 2001-2009.state.gov. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
142.Jump up ^ "Republican Party (United States)". Glbtq.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
143.^ Jump up to: a b Anderson, Lisa (April 19, 2004). "Gays long loyal to GOP agonize over supporting Bush". Chicago Tribune.
144.Jump up ^ "Amendment Would Mean No Money to D.C. Domestic-Partner Registry". CitizenLink. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
145.Jump up ^ Julian Dixon. "H.R. 6056 (102nd)". Govtrack.us. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
146.Jump up ^ Helen Thorgalsen. "George H.W. Bush Serves As Witness At Gay Wedding (PHOTO)". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
147.Jump up ^ "New ‘cottage’ at Maine compound for Jeb Bush". 23 May 2015.
148.Jump up ^ "Arkansas". Glapn.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
149.^ Jump up to: a b c d Socarides, Richard. "Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act". Newyorker.com. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
150.Jump up ^ Sullivan, Andrew (March 29, 2013). "Dissents of the Day." The Dish.
151.Jump up ^ Feder, Jody (2010). "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A Legal Analysis. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4379-2208-0.
152.Jump up ^ see pages 495-497. Books.google.com. November 25, 2009. ISBN 9780307429582. Retrieved July 22, 2013.
153.Jump up ^ John Cloud (November 1996). "Stranger Among Friends. – book reviews". Washington Monthly. Retrieved August 30, 2011.
154.Jump up ^ Klein, Joe (2002). The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton. Doubleday. ISBN 0-7679-1412-0.
155.Jump up ^ "President seeks better implementation of 'don't ask, don't tell'". CNN. December 11, 1999. Retrieved August 30, 2011.
156.Jump up ^ "PUBLIC LAW 104 – 199 – DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT". U.S. Government Printing Office.
157.Jump up ^ Frank Rich (February 26, 2012). "Bill Clinton's shifting justifications for signing the Defense of Marriage Act". New York.
158.^ Jump up to: a b Chris Geidner (September 29, 2011). "Becoming Law". MetroWeekly.
159.Jump up ^ "Unfinished Business: The Defense of Marriage Act". The New York Times. July 2, 2011.
160.Jump up ^ "Clinton-Gore Accomplishments: Gay and Lesbian Americans". Clinton2.nara.gov. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
161.Jump up ^ Volsky, Igor. (August 5, 1995) Clinton Issued Order Letting Gays Get Security Clearances 16 Years Ago Today
162.Jump up ^ "Clinton Grants Gay Workers Job Protection - New York Times". Nytimes.com. May 29, 1998. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
163.Jump up ^ "2000.12.01: (Fact Sheet) Clinton Administration Record on HIV/AIDS". Archive.hhs.gov. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
164.Jump up ^ "S. 2056 (104th): Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996 (On Passage of the Bill)". Govtrack.us. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
165.Jump up ^ "The Clinton-Gore Administration A Record of Progress for Gay and Lesbian Americans." The White House
166.^ Jump up to: a b "Clinton Declares June 2000 Gay & Lesbian Pride Month".
167.Jump up ^ "Bill Clinton on Prop 8: "It's Unfair and It's Wrong." Queerty.
168.Jump up ^ Tracey, Michael (July 14, 2009). "Bill Clinton drops opposition to same-sex marriage." The Nation.
169.Jump up ^ "Bill Clinton Calls for DOMA Repeal". Hrc.org. June 25, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
170.^ Jump up to: a b "Bush angers slain man's family". Salon. October 16, 2000. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
171.Jump up ^ "Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE". Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
172.Jump up ^ "Texas Gubernatorial Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test". Votesmart.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
173.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "George W. Bush on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
174.Jump up ^ Blakeslee, Nate (March 1, 2007). "Family Values". Texasmonthly.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
175.Jump up ^ "How gay GOP group lost its faith in Bush / High hopes in 2000 dissolve in dispute over marriage ban". Sfgate.com. October 10, 2004. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
176.^ Jump up to: a b "Gay Republicans Endorse Bush". Articles.latimes.com. August 5, 2000. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
177.Jump up ^ "With Respect to Mary Cheney". Fair.org. February 22, 1999. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
178.Jump up ^ "Gore Flips, and Flops, on Defense of Marriage Act, AR Says". Thefreelibrary.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
179.Jump up ^ "George W. Bush on Defense". Issues2000.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
180.Jump up ^ Lee, Christopher (May 25, 2005). "Official Says Law Doesn't Cover Gays". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
181.Jump up ^ Heredia, Christopher (April 10, 2001). "NEWSMAKER PROFILE / Scott Evertz / New AIDS Czar Called a Skillful Bridge Builder / Evertz the first gay man to hold position". The San Francisco Chronicle.
182.Jump up ^ Mike Allen (June 27, 2002). "Bush Approves Federal Same-sex Death Benefits". Articles.sun-sentinel.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
183.Jump up ^ Carpenter, Flagrant Conduct, 269
184.Jump up ^ "Democrats Ready to Vote on Marriage". Glapn.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
185.Jump up ^ "Transcript of Bush statement". CNN. February 24, 2004. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
186.Jump up ^ "Log Cabin nixes Bush, others endorse Kerry". PrideSource. September 16, 2004.
187.Jump up ^ Allen, Mike; Milbank, Dana (March 27, 2005). "Log Cabins Go Against the GOP Grain". The Washington Post.
188.Jump up ^ "Black Gay Republicans Break with Log Cabin Republicans, Endorse Bush" (Press release). Prnewswire.com. September 21, 2004. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
189.Jump up ^ "In a First, Gay Rights Are Pressed At the U.N.". Atlantic Philanthropies. December 19, 2008. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
190.Jump up ^ Terkel, Amanda (April 25, 2013). "George W. Bush Refuses To Weigh In On Gay Marriage". The Huffington Post. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
191.Jump up ^ "George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Immigration, and Why Obama Kept His Terrorism Policies". ABC. July 7, 2013. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
192.^ Jump up to: a b Baim, Tracy (January 14, 2009). "Obama changed views on gay marriage; 1996 statement: 'I favor legalizing same-sex marriage'" (PDF). Windy City Times. pp. 6–8.
193.Jump up ^ Baim, Tracy (January 21, 2009). "Obama marriage story goes national; 1998 survey shows another shift" (PDF). Windy City Times. p. 5.
194.^ Jump up to: a b "Barack Obama on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
195.Jump up ^ "CNN/YouTube debate transcript". CNN. July 24, 2007. Retrieved July 23, 2007.
196.Jump up ^ Philip Elliott. Obama's N.H. visit brings little criticism, much love. Associated Press, printed in Rockford Register Star, February 13, 2007. (Accessed March 2, 2007)
197.^ Jump up to: a b "SCORECARD Measuring Support for Equality in the 110th Congress" (PDF). Retrieved June 29, 2014.
198.^ Jump up to: a b c "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Votesmart.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
199.Jump up ^ Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage Barack Obama: US Senator for Illinois (Accessed March 2, 2007)
200.Jump up ^ "Michelle Obama speaks to gay Democrats". Reuters. June 27, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
201.Jump up ^ "The audacity of hope – 'from Selma to Stonewall'". TMP. June 27, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
202.Jump up ^ "Michelle Obama Speaks to LGBT Delegates at Convention Lunch". Towleroad. August 27, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
203.Jump up ^ Dschabner (November 2, 2008). "Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.". ABC News. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
204.Jump up ^ Chipman, Kim (February 29, 2008). "Gay Clinton Backers Defect to Obama, Eroding Her Base". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
205.Jump up ^ "Human Rights Campaign endorses Obama". Washington Blade. June 6, 2008. Retrieved August 11, 2008.[dead link]
206.Jump up ^ PRESS RELEASE—Human Rights Campaign Endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States[dead link]
207.Jump up ^ Baim, Tracy; Besen, Wayne R. (2010). Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage. Obama and the Gays. p. 110. ISBN 9781453801710. Retrieved 1 September 2014.
208.Jump up ^ Pleming, Sue (March 18, 2009). "In turnaround, U.S. signs U.N. gay rights document". Reuters. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
209.Jump up ^ "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009". Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
210.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month".
211.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month | The White House". Whitehouse.gov. May 31, 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
212.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012".
213.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2013". Whitehouse.gov. May 31, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
214.Jump up ^ "Obama proclaims June LGBT Pride Month". Metro Weekly. May 30, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
215.Jump up ^ "Obama issues Presidential Proclamation declaring June LGBT Pride Month – LGBTQ Nation". Lgbtqnation.com. 2015-05-29. Retrieved 2015-06-04.
216.Jump up ^ Weiner, Rachel (October 28, 2009). "Hate Crimes Bill Signed Into Law 11 Years After Matthew Shepard's Death". Huffington Post.
217.Jump up ^ "Sharon Lubinski: Senate Confirms First Openly Gay US Marshal". Huffington Post. December 28, 2009.
218.Jump up ^ Tapper, Jake (January 4, 2010). "President Obama Names Transgender Appointee to Commerce Department". ABC News. Archived from the original on January 7, 2010. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
219.Jump up ^ "Obama's New Queer Appointee Amanda Simpson Brings Some 'T' to the Administration". Queerty.com. December 31, 2009. Archived from the original on January 19, 2010. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
220.Jump up ^ "Obama Hires Trans Woman Amanda Simpson". National Center for Transgender Equality. December 31, 2009. Archived from the original on January 4, 2010. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
221.Jump up ^ Hananel, Sam (October 26, 2010). "Obama has appointed most U.S. gay officials". Washington Times. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
222.Jump up ^ Obama Widens Medical Rights for Gay Partners
223.Jump up ^ "Obama Expands Family Medical Leave Act to Cover Gay Employees". Fox News. June 22, 2010.
224.Jump up ^ "Obama signs bill repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' policy". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. December 22, 2010. Retrieved December 22, 2010.[dead link]
225.Jump up ^ "President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law "Unconstitutional"". Abcnews.go.com. February 23, 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
226.^ Jump up to: a b "U.N. Gay Rights Protection Resolution Passes, Hailed As 'Historic Moment'". The Huffington Post. June 17, 2011. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
227.Jump up ^ Luke Johnson (April 9, 2012). "Obama Opposes Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
228.Jump up ^ Stein, Sam (May 9, 2012). "Obama Backs Gay Marriage". Huffington Post.
229.Jump up ^ yvonna. "Home | Gay-Straight Alliance Network". Gsanetwork.org. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
230.Jump up ^ Gautam Raghavan (January 25, 2012). "A Special Message on National Gay-Straight Alliance Day | The White House". Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
231.Jump up ^ Jamiah Adams (May 27, 2011). "HRC Endorses President Obama for 2012". Democrats.org. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
232.Jump up ^ "2012 Endorsements". Votesmart.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
233.Jump up ^ Robillard, Kevin (January 21, 2013). "First inaugural use of the word 'gay'". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
234.Jump up ^ Michelson, Noah (January 21, 2013). "Obama Inauguration Speech Makes History With Mention Of Gay Rights Struggle, Stonewall Uprising". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
235.Jump up ^ "Obama: I would rule against all gay marriage bans". USA Today. March 1, 2013.
236.Jump up ^ "Barack Obama's Surprising Lack Of Patience For Russia's Anti-Gay Laws". Forbes. August 9, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
237.Jump up ^ Theodore Deutch. "H.R. 3304: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014". Govtrack.us. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
238.Jump up ^ Obama Condemns Uganda's Tough Antigay Measure
239.Jump up ^ "Obama includes openly gay athletes in 2014 Olympic delegation". December 17, 2013. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
240.^ Jump up to: a b "U.S. delegation delivers strong message in Sochi". February 7, 2014. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
241.Jump up ^ "Uganda's Museveni meets with Obama days after repeal of anti-gay law". Gay Star News. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
242.Jump up ^ WKYC (August 9, 2014). "President Obama makes video appearance at Gay Games". Retrieved October 6, 2014.
243.Jump up ^ "Obama Makes Surprise Video Appearance at Gay Games Opening Ceremony: WATCH". Towleroad: A Site With Homosexual Tendencies. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
244.Jump up ^ Eyder Peralta. "U.S. Appoints First-Ever Special Envoy For LGBT Rights : The Two-Way". NPR. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
245.Jump up ^ White House complex now has a gender-neutral bathroom - CNN.com. Edition.cnn.com (2008-10-29). Retrieved on 2015-04-10.
246.Jump up ^ April 9, 2015 (2014-10-17). "Leelah's death moves Obama to respond". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved 2015-04-10.
247.Jump up ^ Dawn Ennis. "Obama Calls for End to Discriminatory Parenting Laws". Advocate.com. Retrieved 2015-05-04.
248.Jump up ^ "The 2008 Democratic National Platform: Renewing America's Promise". Democratic Party. Retrieved August 9, 2009.
249.Jump up ^ Stein, Sam (August 4, 2012). "Democratic Party Platform: Pro-Gay Marriage, Immigration Reform, Shots At Romney, Squishy On Guns". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
250.Jump up ^ "GOP Platform " White House 2012". Whitehouse12.com. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
251.Jump up ^ "Fred Karger, gay Republican, for president". Retrieved 30 October 2014.
252.Jump up ^ "Libertarians applaud steps toward marriage equality". Libertarian Party. April 13, 2009. Retrieved July 9, 2009. "America's third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage."
253.Jump up ^ John Hospers, RIP. reason. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
254.Jump up ^ "Sodomy laws ruled unconstitutional". TaskForce. June 26, 2003. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
255.Jump up ^ "LGBT-Sexual Orientation". psychiatry.org. May 30, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
256.Jump up ^ "Transgender Community Lobbies to be Allowed to Serve in Military - Time Warner Cable News". Rochester.twcnews.com. June 21, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
257.Jump up ^ "Asylum Based on Sexual Orientation and Fear of Persecution". Rainbowsig.org. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
258.Jump up ^ "How Will Ugandan Gay Refugees Be Received By U.S.?". NPR.org. 24 February 2014. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
259.Jump up ^ "President Obama Signs Hate Crime Prevention Act". Fox News. October 28, 2009. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
260.Jump up ^ Karen McVeigh and Paul Harris. "US military lifts ban on openly gay troops | World news". The Guardian. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
261.Jump up ^ http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/TransMilitary2007.pdf
262.Jump up ^ STUDY: Voter ID Laws in 10 States May Disenfranchise Transgender Citizens. Advocate.com (2014-09-10). Retrieved on 2015-04-10.
263.Jump up ^ http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/voter-id-laws-september-2014.pdf
264.Jump up ^ Voting While Trans: Preparing for Voter ID Laws. Scribd.com. Retrieved on 2015-04-10.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to LGBT rights in the United States.
WhiteHouse.gov: Civil Rights — includes section on LGBT rights
A Look at the State of the Gay Rights Movement – video report by Democracy Now!
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Human Rights Campaign – official website HRC LGBT Resources Guide
Refuge Restrooms – User-compiled and evaluated gender-inclusive restroom locator (with disability access feature)


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
LGBT rights in the United States

 






 


















































 


 







United States

 
















 



 



 










 




 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
LGBT rights in North America

 


























 



 




















 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics

 






 










 






 































 






 




 
















 


 























 


 



 




 



















 


 









 





 




 







LGBT pride flag

 


 






 


 


 


 





 


 



 






 




 






 


 












 


 






 





 
















 







 




 







 


 











 


 










 



 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Early LGBT rights advocacy in the United States (pre-Stonewall riots)

 















 










 










 


















 









 










 





 















 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States topics

 












































 
















 










































 




















 









 







 













 










 













 





















 





























 











































 

















 





























 









  


Categories: History of LGBT civil rights in the United States
LGBT law in the United States
LGBT rights by country
LGBT rights in the United States






















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk





 



Read

Edit

View history










 






Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Italiano
Polski
Русский
Simple English
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 14:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki 
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States





 



LGBT rights in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


LGBT rights in the United States United States
United States
United States
 
Same-sex sexual activity legal?
Legal nationwide since 2003
 (Lawrence v. Texas)
Gender identity/expression
Laws vary by state
Military service
Yes (for lesbian, gay, and bisexual members); "Don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed in September 2011
Transgender/transsexual and intersex persons not allowed to enlist
Discrimination protections
Varies by state. (see below)
Federal hate-crime law includes sexual orientation and gender identity since 2009
Federal executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation for employees in the federal civilian workforce, along with the government employment in the District of Columbia, and the United States Postal Service, since 1998 (see Executive Order 13087).
Family rights

Recognition of
 relationships
Same-sex unions recognized federally, varies by state

Restrictions:
 Defense of Marriage Act (1996) at federal level - Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act invalidated June 26, 2013 (United States v. Windsor), other restrictions vary by state
Adoption
Varies by state
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States have evolved over time and vary greatly on a state-by-state basis.
Sexual activity between consenting adults and adolescents of a close age of the same sex has been legal nationwide since 2003, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Age of consent in each state varies from age 16 to 18;[1] some states maintain different ages of consent for males/females or for same-sex/opposite-sex relations.
LGBT rights related laws including family, marriage, and anti-discrimination laws vary by state. Thirty-seven states plus Washington, D.C. offer marriage to same-sex couples; these marriages are recognized by the federal government and Missouri, but not by the twelve other states.[2] Additionally, some states offer civil unions or other types of recognition which offer some of the legal benefits and protections of marriage.
Twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and nineteen states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.[3] Hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity are also punishable by federal law under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals is classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4]
Adoption policies in regard to gay and lesbian parents also vary greatly from state to state. Some allow adoption by same-sex couples, while others ban all unmarried couples from adoption.[5]
Civil rights for LGBT people in the United States are advocated by a variety of organizations at all levels and concentrations of political and legal life, including the Human Rights Campaign,[6] Lambda Legal, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.


Contents  [hide]
1 LGBT rights and federal and state law 1.1 Judicial history 1.1.1 State Supreme Court Decisions
1.1.2 United States Supreme Court decisions
1.1.3 United States Court of Appeals Decision
1.1.4 United States District Court Decisions
1.2 Legislative history 1.2.1 Legislative history of same-sex marriage 1.2.1.1 California
1.2.1.2 Vermont
1.2.1.3 Maine
1.2.1.4 New Hampshire
1.2.1.5 District of Columbia
1.2.1.6 New York
1.2.1.7 Washington
1.2.1.8 New Jersey
1.2.1.9 Maryland
1.2.1.10 Rhode Island
1.2.1.11 Illinois
1.2.1.12 Delaware
1.2.1.13 Minnesota
1.2.2 Legislative history of civil unions and domestic partnerships 1.2.2.1 District of Columbia
1.2.2.2 Hawaii
1.2.2.3 California
1.2.2.4 Vermont
1.2.2.5 Rhode Island
1.2.2.6 New Jersey
1.2.2.7 Maine
1.2.2.8 Utah
1.2.2.9 Connecticut
1.2.2.10 Washington
1.2.2.11 New Hampshire
1.2.2.12 Oregon
1.2.2.13 New Mexico
1.2.2.14 Maryland
1.2.2.15 Colorado
1.2.2.16 Wisconsin
1.2.2.17 Nevada
1.2.2.18 Minnesota
1.2.2.19 Illinois

1.3 Initiative and referendum history
1.4 Restrictions 1.4.1 Defense of Marriage Act
1.4.2 State constitutional amendments
1.4.3 State statutes
1.5 Blood and tissue donation
1.6 State adoption laws
1.7 Anti-discrimination laws 1.7.1 Medical facilities
1.7.2 Housing
1.7.3 Employment
1.7.4 Hate crime laws
1.8 Conjugal visits
1.9 Military service
1.10 Laws regarding same-sex sexual activity
2 Reparations
3 Public opinion 3.1 Support
3.2 Opposition
4 U.S. political parties 4.1 US presidents 4.1.1 George Washington
4.1.2 John Adams
4.1.3 Thomas Jefferson
4.1.4 Andrew Jackson
4.1.5 Benjamin Harrison
4.1.6 William McKinley
4.1.7 Woodrow Wilson
4.1.8 Franklin Roosevelt
4.1.9 Harry Truman
4.1.10 Dwight Eisenhower
4.1.11 Lyndon B. Johnson
4.1.12 Richard Nixon
4.1.13 Gerald Ford
4.1.14 Jimmy Carter
4.1.15 Ronald Reagan
4.1.16 George H. W. Bush
4.1.17 Bill Clinton
4.1.18 George W. Bush
4.1.19 Barack Obama
4.2 Democratic Party 4.2.1 National Stonewall Democrats
4.3 Republican Party 4.3.1 Log Cabin Republicans
4.3.2 GOProud
4.4 Libertarian Party 4.4.1 Outright Libertarians
4.5 Constitution Party
4.6 Other political parties 4.6.1 Lavender Greens

5 Summary table of LGBT rights goals in the United States
6 See also
7 Bibliography
8 References
9 External links

LGBT rights and federal and state law[edit]

 

State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States1
  Same-sex marriage legal
  Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed indefinitely
  Same-sex marriage banned where federal circuit court has found similar bans unconstitutional
  Same-sex marriage banned
  Same-sex marriage legality complicated2,3,4
1 Native American tribal jurisdictions have laws pertaining to same-sex marriage independent of state law. The federal government recognizes same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence.
2 Most counties in Alabama had issued same-sex marriage licenses for several weeks after a federal court legalized same-sex marriage, but all have stopped in response to a conflicting order by the state supreme court. However, the state court did not nullify same-sex marriage recognition. In addition, there is a stayed ruling overturning the state's same-sex marriage ban.
3 Many jurisdictions in Kansas issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state government.
4 Same-sex marriage licenses are issued by three jurisdictions within Missouri. Legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the state government. The state's same-sex marriage ban has been overturned, but the decision is stayed indefinitely.
v ·
 t ·
 e
  



See also: Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state, Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States, Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States § Birth certificates and marriage, Same-sex unions in the United States, Civil union in the United States, Domestic partnership in the United States, Cities and counties in the United States offering a domestic partnership registry, Cohabitation in the United States and Common-law marriage in the United States
Judicial history[edit]
State Supreme Court Decisions[edit]
In 1972, the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Baker v. Nelson ruled that a state's denial of a civil marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution's ban on sex discrimination entitled a same-sex couple to a civil marriage license unless the state could prove it had a "compelling state interest" for denying such a license.[7] A lower court in Hawaii then found that the state had failed to show such a compelling interest,[8] and same-sex marriage was legal in Hawaii for a day, before the judge stayed his ruling. Hawaii amended its constitution in 1998 to allow the legislature to restrict marriage to different-sex couples.
Five state Supreme Court decisions have legalized same sex marriage in five US states:
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in California
On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled in In re Marriage Cases overturned Proposition 22, declared the statute banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional and gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal in California on June 16, 2008 . On November 5, 2008 Proposition 8, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, overturned the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage but this was itself overturned by Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry v. Brown and ruled unconstitutional because of the state's Equal Protection Clause on August 4, 2010. This was upheld on February 7, 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was heard by the United States Supreme Court in June 2013 with the same results.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Connecticut
On October 10, 2008 the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health that gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal in Connecticut on November 14, 2008.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Iowa
On April 3, 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Varnum v. Brien that gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal on April 26, 2009 in Iowa.
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Mexico
On December 19, 2013 the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in Griego v. Oliver that marriage licenses must be issued to couples regardless of gender. Same-sex marriage became legal on December 19, 2013.
Two state Supreme Court decisions have legalized civil unions in two US states:
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont § Civil union
On December 20, 1999 the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled in Baker v. Vermont that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. The Vermont state legislators choose civil unions. Civil unions became legal in Vermont on July 1, 2000.
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey
On October 25, 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled in Lewis v. Harris same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. The New Jersey state legislators choose civil unions. Civil unions became legal in New Jersey on February 19, 2007.
Two state Supreme Court decisions have allowed same sex couples to adopt:
Main article: LGBT rights in Florida § Adoption
On September 22, 2010 the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in In re: Gill that the 1977 ban on homosexuals adopting children in Florida was unconstitutional allowing same sex couples to adopt children in Florida.
Main article: LGBT rights in Arkansas § Adoption and parenting
On April 7, 2011 the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole that the Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1 that banned non-married couples from adopting children was unconstitutional allowing same sex couples to adopt children in Arkansas.
Many states recognize through their judicial systems cohabitation agreements and common law partner agreements concluded between two partners in a relationship. These are de facto domestic partnerships that protect both parties and allow for shared property and court recognition of their relationships.[9][9]
United States Supreme Court decisions[edit]

 

US sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down. Sodomy laws remaining as of 2003 were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas
  Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1979.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 1980-1989.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 1990-1999.
  Laws repealed or struck down from 2000-2002.
  Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.
In March 1956, a Federal District Court ruled that ONE: The Homosexual Magazine, was obscene under the Federal Comstock laws and thus could not be sent through the United States Postal Service. This ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in 1958, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling in One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371, which overturned the previous rulings under a new legal precedent that had been established by the landmark case, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). As a result, gay newspapers, magazines and other publications could be lawfully distributed through the public mail service. On May 22, 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which among other things banned homosexuals, as constitutional. This ban remained in effect until 1991.[10]
In 1972, a Tacoma, Washington teacher of twelve years with a perfect record was terminated after a former student outed him to the vice-principal. The Washington Supreme Court found that homosexuality was immoral and impaired his efficiency as a teacher. The court supported its conclusion in various ways, including the definition of homosexuality in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the criminal nature of homosexual conduct, and finding that an "immoral" person could not be trusted to instruct students as his presence would be inherently disruptive. On October 3, 1977, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, although Justices Brennan and Marshall would have granted cert. This was the first homosexual discrimination decision to be aired on national network news. In fact, it was simultaneously aired on all three national network evening news shows, reaching approximately 60 million viewers.[11][12][13][14][15]
In 1985, the Supreme Court heard Board of Education v. National Gay Task Force, which concerned First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges against a law that allowed schools to fire teachers for public homosexual conduct.[16] The Court affirmed, by an equally divided vote, the Tenth Circuit's ruling that partially struck down the law.[17][18]
Also in 1985, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, letting stand an appellate ruling ordering the university to provide official recognition of a student organization for homosexual students. The case set a national precedent by removing legal restrictions against gay rights groups on college campuses.[19]
On June 30, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick, that homosexual sex was not protected under the right to privacy.
On May 20, 1996, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Romer v. Evans against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual or bisexual citizens from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.
On March 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that federal laws banning on-the-job sexual harassment also applied when both parties are the same sex. The lower courts, however, have reached differing conclusions about whether this ruling applies to harassment motivated by anti-gay animus.
On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Boy Scouts of America had a First Amendment right to exclude people from its organization on the basis of sexual orientation, irrespective of any applicable civil rights laws.
On June 26, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.[20] Despite this ruling, some states have not repealed their sodomy laws[21] and local law enforcement officers have used these statutes to harass or arrest gay people.[22][23][24]
Ten years after the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2013 that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the equal liberty of the person ... protected by the Fifth Amendment". United States v. Windsor, the title of the landmark case, was decided by a 5 to 4 vote. The federal government is required to recognize marriages performed in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized, and provide federal rights, privileges and benefits.[25][26]
United States Court of Appeals Decision[edit]
On June 25, 2014, the Federal Tenth Circuit Court upheld the Utah Federal District Court ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Utah state-constitutional ban of same sex marriage, and the legislative acts to deny any benefits to such married couples.[27]

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state's marital laws...A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.
 For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.
Since the DOMA decision, on June 26, 2013, all federal judges, who have handed down decisions on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, and unanimously declared them unconstitutional. This decision is the first to break that unanimity. One of the three Federal Court judges on the appeals panel, sided with the defendants, and declared the Utah ban of gay marriage to be constitutional.
Judge Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr. wrote in dissent

I disagree with this court's conclusions that (1) Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), need not be followed and that (2) the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment includes a fundamental right which requires Utah to extend marriage to same-gender couples and recognize same-gender marriages from other states. Because I conclude that there is no such fundamental right, it is unnecessary to consider whether Utah's justifications for retaining its repeatedly-enacted concept of marriage pass heightened scrutiny. In my view, the provisions should be analyzed under traditional equal protection analysis and upheld as rationally related to (1) responsible procreation, (2) effective parenting, and (3) the desire to proceed cautiously in this evolving area.
All of the other federal judges, who have issued decisions on this issue, have rejected all of his legal conclusions.
United States District Court Decisions[edit]
By July 1, 2014, ten separate Federal District Court cases had been decided, after the Supreme Court's DOMA decision. All of these decisions are unanimous in finding that bans of gay marriage violate due process and equal protection and were therefore unconstitutional. Decisions were rendered in Idaho,[28] Indiana,[29] Kentucky, Michigan,[30] Pennsylvania,[31] Oklahoma,[32] Oregon,[33] Texas,[34] Utah,[35] Virginia,[36] and Wisconsin[37] These decisions were also unanimous in deciding that the Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Nelson (see above) no longer applies.[31] U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, III ruled, in the Pennsylvania decision, that[31]:13

we, and our sister district courts that have examined precisely this same issue, no longer consider Baker v. Nelson controlling due to the significant doctrinal developments in the four decades that have elapsed since it was announced by the Supreme Court. determination, which has been resoundingly echoed by our sister district courts which have considered, and rejected, Baker's precedential value in light of doctrinal developments in the areas of constitutional due process and equal protection.
Candy Wagahoff Dale, Chief United States Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled,[28]:12

The Supreme Court's marriage cases recognize an individual's fundamental right to marry. The right transcends one's race, confinement to prison, or ability to support children. Lawrence unequivocally cements marriage as among the constitutionally protected liberties shared by homosexual and heterosexual persons alike. The teaching of these cases is that the fundamental right to marry cannot be narrowed...
Judge Jones' decision also said,[31]:39

The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of 'separate but equal.' ... In the sixty years since Brown was decided, 'separate' has thankfully faded into history, and only 'equal' remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.

We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.
The June 6, 2014, opinion and order, of Judge Crabb said,[37]:4

this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.
 ...the parties in this case...agree about...the central role that marriage plays in American society. It is a defining rite of passage...the most important for some. ...by refusing to extend marriage to the plaintiffs..., defendants are...denying equal citizenship to plaintiffs.
Legislative history[edit]
Since the turn of the century there was a strong push to enact specific legislation, or state constitutional amendments, either legalizing gay marriage, or banning it in nearly every state. As of June 1, 2014, the situation is fluid. In several states petitions are being circulated to place the issue on the November 2014 ballot. In every state with a ban there is a federal court case challenging the constitutionality of the ban.[38]
Legislative history of same-sex marriage[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
Nine states and the District of Columbia legislators have passed same-sex marriage bills in their states, of which four were vetoed by the governors, four were signed by state governors and the mayor of Washington D.C., and one was overridden by the state legislature:
California[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in California
In September 2003 the California state legislators passed a same-sex marriage bill which was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. This was the first time a state legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill. In September 2007 the California state legislators again passed a same-sex marriage law, but it was once again vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. On October 12, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill, passed by the California state legislature, that recognized same-sex marriages performed outside of the state of California before November 5, 2008. Same-sex marriages performed after November 5, 2013 are recognized in California with all of the legal rights of marriage but without the use of the word marriage.
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States in Hollingsworth v. Perry decided that the proponents of California Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to defend the provision of the California Constitution that stopped same-sex marriages in the state. Then, on June 28, 2013, a stay of effect, resulting from Proposition 8, was removed from the federal district court and thus, marriages by couples of the same-sex were allowed to be conducted again.
Vermont[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont
On March 25, 2009, Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the same sex marriage bill passed by the Vermont state legislators. On April 7, 2009, the Vermont state legislators overrode the Governor's veto. Same-sex marriage in Vermont became legal on September 1, 2009.
Maine[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Maine
On May 6, 2009, Governor John Baldacci signed the same sex marriage bill passed by the Maine state legislators. On November 3, 2009, a voter referendum vetoed the state law that would have legalized same-sex marriage in Maine. In another voter initiative held on November 6, 2012, same-sex marriage was approved and became legal on December 29, 2012.
New Hampshire[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire
On June 3, 2009, Governor Lynch signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the New Hampshire state legislators. Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire became legal on January 1, 2010.
District of Columbia[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia
On December 18, 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the Council of the District of Columbia. Same-sex marriages in the District of Columbia became legal on March 9, 2010.
New York[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New York
In June 2007 and December 2009 the New York state legislators attempted to pass a same sex marriage bill but it failed to pass. On May 29, 2008, Governor David Paterson directed all New York State agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Governor Paterson's directive cited the Appellate Division decision in the Martinez case, as well as several lower court rulings. As a result of the governor's directive, New York became the first state that did not allow same-sex marriages, but whose state agencies recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. On June 24, 2011, Governor Cuomo signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the New York state legislature. Same-sex marriage became legal in New York on July 24, 2011. Prior to which, same-sex couples could be married in a neighboring state, such as Massachusetts, or Connecticut, and enjoy full state-level recognition of their marriage.
Washington[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Washington
On February 13, 2012, Governor Christine Gregoire signed same-sex marriage legislation, which was then approved in a voter referendum on November 6, and took effect on December 6.
New Jersey[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey § Same-sex marriage
On February 16, 2012, the New Jersey state legislators passed a same-sex marriage bill. On February 17, 2012, Governor Chris Christie vetoed the same-sex marriage bill.
On September 27, 2013, a justice of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled in Garden State Equality v. Dow that civil unions are unequal to marriage, and thus the state must recognize and perform same-sex marriages. The governor initially requested a stay from the Supreme Court of New Jersey, but the request was unanimously denied. On October 18, 2013, the same day that county clerks started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Christie withdrew his appeal, effectively permanently legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey.
Maryland[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Maryland
On February 24, 2010, Maryland's Attorney General, Doug Gansler, issued an opinion after analyzing Maryland's comity laws that the state could recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states which permit same-sex marriage. According to Attorney General Gansler, the opinion is binding on state agencies effective immediately. On March 1, 2012, Governor Martin O'Malley signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by Maryland state legislators. Same sex marriage became legal in Maryland on January 1, 2013 after 52.4% of state voters approved the law in a referendum on November 6, 2012.
Rhode Island[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island
On May 14, 2012, Governor Lincoln Chafee signed an executive order recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.
On May 2, 2013, he signed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage, effective August 1.[39]
Illinois[edit]
On February 15, 2013, the Illinois Senate passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.[40] The bill passed in the House of Representatives on November 5, 2013.[41] Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law two weeks later.[42]
On February 21, 2014, a federal judge authorized Cook County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples without waiting for the Illinois statute legalizing same-sex marriage to take effect on June 1, and the county clerk began issuing licenses immediately.[43][44] Other Illinois County Clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a result of that ruling.
Delaware[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Delaware
On May 11, 2011, Governor Jack Markell signed a civil union bill passed by the Delaware state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Delaware on January 1, 2012. Civil unions in Delaware grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
On May 7, 2013, Governor Jack Markell signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Delaware, making it the 11th state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Minnesota[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Minnesota
On May 13, 2013, a same-sex marriage bill passed in the Senate, after being passed through the House on May 9.
On May 14, 2013, Governor Mark Dayton signed the legislation into law, making Minnesota the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage, effective August 1, 2013.
Legislative history of civil unions and domestic partnerships[edit]
Fifteen U.S. states have civil unions or domestic partnerships:

 

State laws regarding same-sex unions similar to marriage in the United States1
  Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting state privileges of marriage2
  Same-sex unions granting limited/enumerated privileges
  No prohibition or recognition of same-sex unions similar to marriage
  Same-sex union ban overturned, decision stayed
  Same-sex unions similar to marriage banned
1Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal in most states and is recognized by the federal government.
2Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.
District of Columbia[edit]
Main article: District of Columbia § Domestic_partnerships
On June 11, 1992, Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly signed into law a domestic partnership passed by the City Council. It came into effect on June 11, 1992 but was delayed from being implemented in the District of Columbia until 2002, due to a Republican rider added to delay its implementation. Domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia have been expanded over the years, the largest expansion was on May 6, 2008 when the City Council passed a domestic partnership expansion granting domestic partnerships almost exactly the same rights as married couples. On May 20, 2009, the City Council passed and signed into law allowing DC recognition of other states domestic partnerships and amending DC laws on parentage entitlements and rights to children from adult domestic partnerships. The proposed law became effective from July 20, 2009.
Hawaii[edit]
Main articles: Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii and Recognition of same-sex unions in Hawaii
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the state had no compelling interest to deny same-sex couples a marriage license. In response, Hawaii state legislators submitted a constitutional amendment to the public to reserve marriage regulation solely to the discretion of the state legislature. The amendment passed and prohibited implementation of the Supreme Court's ruling. In March 1996, Hawaii state legislators attempted and failed to pass a law to legalize domestic partnerships. In June 1997, Governor Ben Cayetano signed the Reciprocal Beneficiary Act into law, providing limited rights for a "legal relationship created when two consenting adults who are prohibited from marriage."[45] In 2010, Governor Linda Lingle vetoed a civil union bill passed by the Hawaii state legislators. The same civil unions bill was signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie on February 23, 2011. Civil unions in Hawaii went into effect January 1, 2012. Civil unions in Hawaii grant most of the rights afforded to married couples.
California[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnerships in California
California state legislators attempted to pass four domestic partnerships bills in 1994, 1998, and twice in 1999, of which those in 1994 and 1998 were vetoed by Governor Pete Wilson both times. In 1999 Governor Davis vetoed a domestic partnership bill in order to sign another less broad bill into law. On September 22, 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed the domestic partnership bill passed by the California state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in California on January 3, 2000, becoming the first US state to legalize domestic partnerships. Domestic partnerships in California have been expanded over the years, the largest expansion was on September 4, 2003 when the California state legislators passed a domestic partnership expansion granting domestic partnerships almost exactly the same rights as married couples, along with recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships performed out of state. This came into effect on January 1, 2005.
Vermont[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont § Civil union
Due to a state Supreme Court decision, on April 26, 2000, Governor Howard Dean signed a civil union bill passed by the Vermont state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Vermont on July 1, 2000, making it the first US state to recognize civil unions and the first to grant exactly the same rights as married couples.
Rhode Island[edit]
Since 2002, Rhode Island has allowed for domestic partnerships that provide some of the rights and benefits of marriage. On July 2, 2011, Governor Lincoln Chafee signed civil union bill passed by Rhode Island state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Rhode Island on July 1, 2011. Civil unions in Rhode Island grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
New Jersey[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey
On January 12, 2004, Governor Jim McGreevey signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the New Jersey state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in New Jersey on July 10, 2004.
Due to a state Supreme Court decision, on December 21, 2006, Governor Jon Corzine signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the New Jersey state legislators. Civil unions became legal in New Jersey on February 19, 2007. Civil unions in New Jersey grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
Maine[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Maine
On April 28, 2004, Governor John Baldacci signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Maine state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Maine on July 30, 2004. Domestic partnerships in Maine offer limited recognition of same-sex relationships, but not all of the legal protections of marriage.
Utah[edit]
In February 2005 Utah state legislators attempted to pass a reciprocal beneficiary relationship bill, but it failed to pass.
Connecticut[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Connecticut § Civil union
On October 1, 2005, Governor Jodi Rell signed a civil unions bill passed by the Connecticut state legislators, and civil unions went into effect in Connecticut on the same day. On October 1, 2010, all existing civil unions were automatically transformed into marriages.
Washington[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Washington
On April 21, 2007, Governor Christine Gregoire signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Washington state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Washington on July 22, 2007. Domestic partnerships in Washington have been expanded over the years, the largest expansion was on November 6, 2009 when the voters of Washington passed Washington Referendum 71 was passed a domestic partnership expansion granting domestic partnerships almost exactly the same rights as married couples. This came into effect on December 3, 2009.
New Hampshire[edit]
In April 2007, the New Hampshire state legislators attempted to pass a civil union bill but it failed to pass. On May 31, 2007, Governor John Lynch signed a civil union bill passed by the New Hampshire state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Washington on January 1, 2008. On January 1, 2010, all existing civil unions were automatically transformed into marriages.
Oregon[edit]
Main article: Domestic partnership in Oregon
In 2005 the Oregon state legislators attempted to pass a civil union bill but it failed to pass. On May 9, 2007, Governor Kulongoski signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Oregon state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Oregon on February 4, 2008. Domestic partnerships in Oregon grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
New Mexico[edit]
In February 2008 and 2009, New Mexico state legislators attempted to pass a domestic partnership bill but each attempt failed.
Maryland[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Maryland § Domestic partnerships
In May 2005 the Maryland state legislators attempted to pass a domestic partnership bill in Maryland but it was vetoed by Governor Bob Ehrlich. On May 22, 2008, Governor Martin O'Malley signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Maryland state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Maryland on July 1, 2008 and offered limited benefits to unmarried same-sex couples, but not all of the legal protections of marriage. Because voters in the state approved a law to legalize same-sex marriage on November 6, 2012, the state plans to end domestic partnership benefits on January 1, 2014.[46]
In 2014 Governor Martin O'Malley signed a law making it illegal to discriminate against transgender people on matters related to housing, credit, employment, and public restrooms. The law faced harsh opposition from Republicans who called it the "bathroom bill".[47] There was an attempt by a conservative group to overturn the law by forcing referendum, but they came up about 1,000 signatures short of the required 18,500 signatures that are required to put the bill to referendum.[48]
Colorado[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Colorado
On April 9, 2009, Governor Bill Ritter signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Colorado state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Colorado on July 1, 2009. Domestic partnerships in Colorado offer limited recognition of same-sex relationships, but not all of the legal protections of marriage. In March 2011 and May 2012 Colorado state legislators attempted to pass a civil unions bill, but it was killed both times by the Republicans. In March 2013, the Colorado Senate and House passed a bill legalizing civil unions, which Governor John Hickenlooper signed on March 21, 2013. Civil unions began in Colorado on May 1, 2013.
Wisconsin[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Wisconsin
On June 29, 2009, Governor Jim Doyle signed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Wisconsin state legislators. Domestic partnerships became legal in Wisconsin on August 3, 2009. Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin offer limited recognition of same-sex relationships, but not all of the legal protections of marriage.
Nevada[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada
On May 26, 2009, Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed a domestic partnership bill passed by the Nevada state legislators. This veto was overridden by the Senate on May 30, 2009. Domestic partnerships became legal in Nevada on October 1, 2009. Domestic partnerships in Nevada grant almost exactly the same rights as married couples.
Minnesota[edit]
In May 2010 Minnesota state legislators attempted to pass a domestic partnership bill, but it was vetoed by the governor.
On May 13, 2013, a bill that passed through the House in attempt to legalize same-sex marriages in the state passed the Senate. Minnesota was the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Illinois[edit]
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois
On January 12, 2011, Governor Pat Quinn signed a civil union bill passed by the Illinois state legislators. Civil unions became legal in Illinois on June 1, 2011. Civil unions in Illinois provide almost the same rights as marriages.
Initiative and referendum history[edit]
See also: List of US ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination laws
Fifteen states had initiatives to vote on same sex marriage and all but one time same sex marriage was defeated.[49] In the 2012 November elections, Washington, Maryland, and Maine all had referendums to vote on same sex marriage. In this same election, Minnesota had an initiative to add a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Following the results of this election, Maryland, Maine, and Washington became the first states to allow same-sex marriage through popular vote.[50] while in turn Minnesota voters rejected the proposed ban.
On November 7, 1978, California voted 41.6% in favor and 58.4% against Proposition 6, also known as Briggs Initiative, which if passed would have banned gays and lesbians, and possibly anyone who supported gay rights, from working in California's public schools. California became the first US state to vote in favor of gay rights. The Briggs Initiative was the first ballot measure to try and restrict gay rights.
On November 3, 1992, Colorado voted 53.41% in favor and 46.59% against Initiative 2 which was a constitutional amendment which prohibited local laws from giving protected status for sexual orientation. Initiative 2 was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1996.
On November 3, 1992, Oregon voted 43.5% in favor and 56.5% against Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992) was an amendment that if passed would have banned the government in Oregon to use their monies or properties to "promote, encourage or facilitate" homosexuality.
On March 7, 2000, California voted 61.40% in favor and 38.60% against Proposition 22 which banned same sex marriage in the California stature. Proposition 22 was found unconstitutional and overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2008.
November 7, 2000, Nebraska voted 67.5% in favor and 28.8% against Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000) which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 7, 2000, Nevada voted 69.62% in favor and 30.38% against Nevada Question 2 (2000). On November 7, 2002, Nevada voted 67.20% in favor and 32.80% against Nevada Question 2 (2002) again, which after the second approval, banned same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Arkansas voted 75% in favor and 25% against Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 3 (2004), which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Montana voted 66.6% in favor and 33.4% against Montana Initiative 96 (2004), which bans same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, North Dakota voted 73.23% in favor and 26.77% against North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 (2004), which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Ohio voted 61.71% in favor and 38.29% against Ohio State Issue 1 (2004), which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Oregon voted 56.63% in favor and 43.37% against Oregon Ballot Measure 36 (2004), which bans same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 2, 2004, Michigan voted 58.6% in favor and 41.4% against Michigan State Proposal – 04-2 (2004), which bans same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in the constitution.
On November 7, 2006, Colorado voted 47.65% in favor and 52.35% against Colorado Referendum I (2006), which would have passed would have legalized domestic partnerships in Colorado. Also on the same day Colorado voted 55.02% in favor and 44.98% against Amendment 43 which banned same sex marriage in the constitution.
On November 7, 2006, Arizona voted 48.2% in favor and 51.8% against Proposition 107, which would have banned same sex marriage and civil unions in the Arizona state constitution.
On April 3, 2007, Alaska voted 52.8% in favor and 47.2% against Alaska Advisory Vote on Same-Sex Public Employment Benefits, which would have prohibit the state, or a municipality or other subdivision of the state, from providing employment benefits to same-sex partners of public employees and to same-sex partners of public employee retirees. Although the referendum passed a bill to place such a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2008 stalled in the state legislature.
On November 4, 2008, Florida voted 61.92% in favor and 38.08% against Florida Amendment 2, which bans both same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 4, 2008, Arkansas voted 57.07% in favor and 42.93% against Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, which was a constitutional amendment that banned all unmarried couples from adopting children.
On November 4, 2008, California voted 52.24% in favor and 47.76% against Proposition 8, which overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision legalizing same sex marriage by banning same sex marriage in the constitution. Proposition 8 has since been declared unconstitutional.
On November 6, 2009, Maine voted 52.75% in favor and 47.25% against Maine Question 1 which vetoed the same sex marriage law from coming into effect.
On November 6, 2009, Washington voted 53.15% in favor and 46.85% against Referendum 71 to allow the "everything but marriage" domestic partnership expansion to go into effect on December 3, 2009. This made Washington the first state to vote to expand rights of same sex couples.
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voted 61.04% in favor and 38.96% against North Carolina Amendment 1, which bans same sex marriage and civil unions in the constitution.
On November 6, 2012, Maryland voted 52.4% in favor and 47.6% against Question 6 which allowed same-sex couples to receive civil marriage licenses starting January 1, 2013. Maryland became one of the first states to approve same-sex marriage through a popular vote.
On November 6, 2012, Maine voted 53% in favor and 47% against Maine Question 1 which overturned the 2009 voter-approved ballot measure to ban a previous law allowing same sex marriage. Maine also became one of the first states to pass same sex marriage through popular vote.
On November 6, 2012, Washington voted 54% in favor and 46% against Referendum 74 which allowed same sex marriage to be legalized in the state. Washington state also became one of the first states to pass same sex marriage through popular vote.
On November 6, 2012, Minnesota voted 47.66% in favor and 52.34% against Minnesota Amendment 1, a proposed amendment to the Minnesota state constitution which would have restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Restrictions[edit]
Defense of Marriage Act[edit]
Main article: Defense of Marriage Act
See also: Respect for Marriage Act
The events of the Hawaii Supreme Court prompted the United States Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions and relieved states of the requirement that they recognize same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions.
On June 26, 2013, Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor.
State constitutional amendments[edit]
See also: U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions, List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type and Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States § Efforts to ban same-sex unions by constitutional amendment

Ambox current red.svg
 This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2015)
There was a backlash after Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage during the 2004 election cycle where fourteen states amended their constitution to ban recognition of same-sex marriages and often civil unions as well. Mississippi voters amended their constitution, 86% to 14% – the largest margin in any state[51][52] – to ban same-sex marriage and to prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legal elsewhere. Laws in Virginia, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina and Ohio, the most far-reaching, forbid recognition of any benefits similar to those of marriage between people of the same sex.
Twenty-eight states have passed state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
California Proposition 8 was found unconstitutional in 2010 by a United States District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and later the Supreme Court, but since the government of California declined to defend the ballot measure, the Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2013 to dismiss both appeals.[53][54][55] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted its stay of the district court's ruling, enabling same-sex marriages to resume.[56]
Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to outlaw same-sex marriage; that state's lawmakers then did so in 1998.
On November 6, 2012, Minnesota became the first state to vote down a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment failed with a 53% to 47% vote.[57]
State statutes[edit]
Main article: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States § Efforts to prohibit same-sex unions

Ambox current red.svg
 This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2015)
After the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 many state legislators enacted state statutes, nicknamed mini-DOMA's, that ban same sex marriage.[58] Twenty-seven states have state statutes that ban same-sex marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon all have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, but no state statutes banning same sex marriage. California's statute has been repealed as a result of both In Re Marriage Cases and Hollingsworth by SB 1306 (2014).
Three states have state statutes that ban same-sex marriage, but do not have same-sex marriage banned in the constitution: Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
California, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Delaware, Maine, Washington, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia used to have statutes banning same sex marriage, until they were overturned by courts or repealed by the state legislature. Proposition 22, the initiative which reinforce the 1977 statute ban on same-sex marriage in California, was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in 2008 but was subsequently reinstated by Proposition 8 until it was struck down in Hollingsworth.
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have never had any bans in neither their constitutions nor statute banning same-sex marriage.
Blood and tissue donation[edit]
Main article: MSM blood donor controversy § United_States
In the US, the current guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is to permanently defer any male donor who has had sex with another man, in the period from 1977 to the present day. Furthermore, FDA regulations prevent the donation of tissues not considered lifesaving from men who have had sex with other men or have an unknown sexual history.[59]
State adoption laws[edit]
Main article: LGBT adoption in the United States

 

Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples in the United States:
  Joint adoption and stepparent adoption legal
  Joint adoption legal
  Stepparent adoption legal
  Joint adoption and stepparent adoption illegal
  Joint adoption illegal
  Stepparent adoption illegal
  Unknown/ambiguous
Anti-discrimination laws[edit]
Medical facilities[edit]
On April 14, 2010, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order to the Department of Health and Human Services to draft new rules for all hospitals accepting Medicare or Medicaid funds. They would require facilities to grant visitation and medical decision-making rights to gay and lesbian partners, as well as designees of others such as widows and widowers.[60] Such rights are not protected by law in many states. Obama said he was inspired by the case of a Florida family, where one of the mothers died while her partner and four children were denied visitation by the hospital.[60]
Housing[edit]

 

 States that prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. HUD regulations require all housing providers that receive HUD funding not to discriminate against an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.
  Prohibits housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
  Prohibits housing discrimination based on sexual orientation only
  Does not factor sexual orientation or gender identity/unclear
Main article: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is an agency within the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. FHEO is responsible for administering and enforcing federal fair housing laws and establishing policies that make sure all Americans have equal access to the housing of their choice. Housing discrimination refers to discrimination against potential or current tenants by landlords. In the United States, there is no federal law against such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but at least twenty-two states and many major cities have enacted laws prohibiting it.[61] See, for example, Washington House Bill 2661.
In 2012, The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued a regulation to prohibit LGBT discrimination in federally-assisted housing programs. The new regulations ensure that the Department's core housing programs are open to all eligible persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is responsible for enforcing a variety of fair housing laws, which prohibit discrimination in both privately owned and publicly assisted housing including:
The Fair Housing Act
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 109 of Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
Employment[edit]

 

 Current U.S. LGBT employment discrimination laws.
  Sexual orientation and gender identity: all employment
  Sexual orientation with anti–employment discrimination ordinance and gender identity solely in public employment
  Sexual orientation: all employment
  Sexual orientation and gender identity: state employment
  Sexual orientation: state employment
  No state-level protection for LGBT employees
Main article: LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
There is no federal statute addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Protections at the national level are limited. Some regulations protect government employees but do not extend their protections to the private sector. Twenty-two states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual identity. Employment discrimination refers to discriminatory employment practices such as bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, and various types of harassment.[62] In the United States there is "very little statutory, common law, and case law establishing employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation as a legal wrong."[63]
Presidents have established certain protections for some employees of the federal government by executive order. In 1995, President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12968 establishing criteria for the issuance of security clearances included sexual orientation for the first time in its non-discrimination language: "The United States Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information." It also said that "no inference" about suitability for access to classified information "may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee."[64] Clinton's Executive Order 13087 in 1998 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce. It applied to the large majority of federal employees, but not to the excepted services such as the military.[65]
At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On July 1, 2011, the EEOC ruled that job discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals constituted a form of sex-stereotyping and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[66] On April 20, 2012,[66] the EEOC went further and ruled that gender identity was also a protected class under the ban on sex discrimination found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[67]
On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce and both "sexual orientation" and gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors.[68][69]
Hate crime laws[edit]
Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States
Hate crime laws (also known as bias crimes laws) protect against crimes motivated by feelings of enmity against a protected class. Until 2009, a 1969 federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability. It removed the requirement that the victim of a hate crime be engaged in a federally protected activity.[70] President Obama signed the legislation on October 28, 2009.[71]
Two statutes, the Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990) and the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act (1997), require the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as college/university campus security authorities, to collect and publish hate crime statistics.

 

 Current U.S. LGBT hate crimes laws by state. A national hate crimes law encompasses both sexual orientation and gender identity.
  Sexual orientation and gender identity recognized in state hate crimes law
  Sexual orientation recognized in state hate crimes law
  Sexual orientation recognized for data collection about hate crimes
  State hate crimes law uninclusive of sexual orientation or gender identity
Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AR, GA, IN, SC, and WY). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity; 32 cover disability; 32 of them cover sexual orientation; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 18 cover transgender/gender-identity; 5 cover political affiliation.[72] 31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts.[72] 27 states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.[72]
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) the Supreme Court unanimously held that state penalty-enhancement laws for hate crimes were constitutional and did not violate First Amendment rights to freedom of thought and expression.
Conjugal visits[edit]
Main article: Conjugal visits in the United States


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2014)
In the United States, six states permit conjugal visits to prisoners: California, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York and Washington. All except Mississippi have legalized same-sex marriage.[73] In June 2007, California, following the enactment in 2005 of a state law requiring state agencies to provide the same rights to domestic partners as to married couples, became the first US state to allow same-sex conjugal visits. The new rules allowed for visits only by registered same-sex married couples or domestic partners, provided that the same-sex marriage or domestic partnership was established before the prisoner was incarcerated. In April 2011, New York adopted rules to allow conjugal visits for same-sex partners who are married or in civil unions.
Military service[edit]
Main article: Sexual orientation and the United States military
See also: Don't ask, don't tell and Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
Prior to 1993, lesbian and gay people were not permitted to serve in the US military. Under the "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy enacted that year, they were permitted to do so only if they did not disclose their sexual orientation. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 permitted homosexual men and women to serve openly in the armed forces following once designated government officials certified that the military was prepared for the repeal.[74] Since September 20, 2011, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have been able to serve openly.[75] Transgender and intersex service-members however are still banned from serving openly, due to Department of Defense medical policies which consider gender identity disorder to be a medically disqualifying condition.[76]
Laws regarding same-sex sexual activity[edit]
Main article: Sodomy laws in the United States
See also: Crimes against nature and Age of consent in North America § United States
Prior to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, same-sex sexual activity was illegal in fourteen US states, Puerto Rico, and the US military.
By that time, twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and five territories had repealed their state's sodomy laws by legislative action.[77][78] After the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the US Congress repealed sodomy laws in the US military. Twelve states have had state Supreme Court or state Appeals courts rule that their state's sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Virginia have all had their state sodomy laws struck down by the courts, but the legislatures have not repealed those laws.[79] On April 18, 2013, the governor of Montana signed a bill repealing that state's sodomy law; it had previously been nullified by the Montana Supreme Court.[80]
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah have yet to repeal or strike down their state's sodomy laws, although these are unenforceable since the US Supreme Court ruling.
Reparations[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (March 2014)
In 2003 Robert DeKoven, a professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, was the first proponent to argue that gays and lesbians in the United States should be redressed for what they have suffered through years and decades of suppression and attacks.[81] DeKoven cited the examples of the European Court of Human Rights as a model. New York University Professor Jacob Appel also argued that cause in 2009 in the Free Press.[82]
Public opinion[edit]
Main article: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

 

 Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America
  A poll reports a significant finding that a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
 (95% significant: Result is > 0.653 of the 95% sampling error (> 1.28σ) above 50%.)
  A poll shows at least a plurality, and possibly a majority, of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  A poll shows a statistical tie between support of and opposition to same-sex marriage.
 (Statistical tie: Not distinguishable at 95% confidence. Difference between support and opposition is < 0.842 of the 95% sampling error (< 1.65σ).)
  A poll shows at least a plurality, and possibly a majority, of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  A poll reports a significant finding that a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
 (95% significant: Result is > 0.653 of the 95% sampling error (> 1.28σ) above 50%.)
  No polling data within the past two years.
When a state is striped with light gray and another color, the color stripe indicates the result of the last poll for that state, in the absence of data within the past two years.
 A state shown with two colors indicates recent polls with conflicting results.
A March 2014 public opinion poll by Washington Post/ABC News showed support for same-sex marriage at 59% among Americans,[83] and a February 2014 New York Times/CBS News opinion poll showed 56% support for same-sex marriage.[84] A November 2012 Gallup poll indicated 61% support for gays and lesbians being allowed to adopt children.[85]
Older polls showed that the nation could be divided into roughly equal thirds: one third supports same-sex marriage completely, another supports only civil unions, and the last is against any form of union entirely.[86][87] However, in terms of attitudes to homosexuality, the United States can hardly be called one country. It is common for polls to show a clear majority support for same-sex marriage in Northeastern states, and Pacific Coast states. States that have consistently shown a majority support for same-sex marriage for at least the past few years include Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York,[88] New Jersey,[89] New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. While some of these states do not have same-sex marriage, Iowa, which does have same-sex marriage, does not have majority support; in fact, polls place support in the high forties (slightly lower than the national average). In New York, where there was majority support reported since 2005, marriage became legal on July 24, 2011. Iowa falls into a second category of states, where new generations of voters overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage (those under thirty have support placed above 60%).[90][91]
Support[edit]
Main article: List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States
The main supporters of gay rights in the U.S. have generally been political liberals and libertarians. Regionally, support for the gay rights movement has been strongest in the areas of the North and West coasts, and in other states with large urban populations. Although the national Republican Party official platform opposes gay rights in the early 21st century, groups advocating for LGBT issues inside the party include the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, Young Conservatives For The Freedom To Marry, and College Republicans of the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University. A poll in March 2014 found that 40% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.[92] In 2013, 52% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents between the age of 18–49 years old supported same-sex marriage in a joint Washington Post-ABC News poll.[93]
Opposition[edit]
Main article: LGBT rights opposition in the United States
The main opponents of gay rights in the U.S. have generally been political and religious conservatives. Conservatives cite various Bible passages from the Old and New Testaments as their justification for opposing gay rights. Regionally, opposition to the gay rights movement has been strongest in the South and in other states with a large rural and conservative population.
As the movement for same-sex marriage has developed, many national and/or international organizations have opposed that movement. Those organizations include the American Family Association, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Save Our Children, NARTH, the national Republican Party,[94] the Roman Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),[95] the Southern Baptist Convention,[96] Alliance for Marriage, Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage. A number of these groups have been named as anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[97]
U.S. political parties[edit]
US presidents[edit]
George Washington[edit]
Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army
To train the new American Army in the latest military drills and tactics, General George Washington brought in Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben (1730–94), who had been an officer on the German General staff. Von Steuben escaped Germany where he was threatened with prosecution for homosexuality. He joined Washington's army at Valley Forge in February 1778 accompanied by two young aides. Steuben became an American general, and a senior advisor to Washington. Despite rumors about sexual behavior at his parties, there never was an investigation of Steuben, and he received a Congressional pension after the war.[98][99]
The first evidence of antipathy to homosexuals serving in the United States military dates from March 11, 1778, when Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin was brought to trial before a court-martial. According to General Washington's report: "...Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcolm's Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy ..." Washington's secretary described the results of the trial: "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence & Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning...."[100]
John Adams[edit]
Presidency
In 1801, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia in the now formally structured District, with those of Maryland applying to that portion of the District ceded from Maryland, and those of Virginia applying to that portion ceded from Virginia. At the time, Maryland had a sodomy law applicable only to free males with a punishment of "labour for any time, in their discretion, not exceeding seven years for the same crime, on the public roads of the said county, or in making, repairing or cleaning the streets or bason [sic] of Baltimore-town;" it imposed the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. Similarly, Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for free persons committing sodomy, but imposed the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. The law went into effect on February 27, 1801.[101]
Thomas Jefferson[edit]
Governorship of Virginia
In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy.[102] However, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.[103]
Andrew Jackson[edit]
Presidency
In 1831, Congress established penalties in the District of Columbia for a number of crimes, but not for sodomy. It specified that "every other felony, misdemeanor, or offence not provided for by this act, may and shall be punished as heretofore[.]" At the time, Maryland and Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for committing sodomy. It went into effect in March 2, 1831.[101]
Benjamin Harrison[edit]
Presidency
In 1892, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that states that "for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of property within the District of Columbia." Labeled in the law as vagrants were "all public prostitutes, and all such persons who lead a notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life[.]" All offenders had to post bond of up to $200 for good behavior for a period of six months. The law went into effect on July 29, 1892.[101]
William McKinley[edit]
Presidency
In 1898, Congress deleted the word "notoriously" from the provision concerning a lewd or lascivious course of life, thereby allowing prosecution of persons without the condition of notoriety. The bond for good behavior was raised to $500, and the law was made gender-neutral. The law went into effect on July 8, 1898.[101]
In 1901, Congress adopted a new code for the District of Columbia that expressly recognized common-law crimes, with a penalty for them of up to five years and/or a $1,000 fine. The law went into effect on March 3, 1901.[101]
Woodrow Wilson[edit]
Presidency
On December 14, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson vetoed the Immigration Act of 1917, excluded individuals from entering the United States who were found "mentally defective" or who had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority." A similar Public Health Service definition of homosexuals was used simultaneously by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to reinforce the language of the Immigration Act of 1917 and effectively ban all homosexual immigrants who disclosed their sexual minority status. On February 5, 1917, the Congress overrode Wilson's veto, implementing the Immigration Act of 1917 into law.[104]
On March 1, 1917, the Articles of War of 1916 are implemented. This included a revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.[105]
On June 4, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a crime, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy.[105] It went into effect on February 4, 1921.[106]
Franklin Roosevelt[edit]
Assistant Secretary of the Navy
In 1919, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt requests an investigation into "vice and depravity" in the sea services, which launches a sting operation in which undercover operatives attempt to seduce sailors suspected of being homosexual. At least 17 sailors are jailed and court-martialed before public outcry prompts the Senate to condemn the operation.[105]
Presidency
In 1935, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that made it a crime for "any person to invite, entice, persuade, or to address for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading any person or persons...to accompany, to go with, to follow him or her to his or her residence, or to any other house or building, inclosure, or other place, for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose." It imposed a fine of up to $100, up to 90 days in jail, and courts were permitted to "impose conditions" on anyone convicted under this law, including "medical and mental examination, diagnosis and treatment by proper public health and welfare authorities, and such other terms and conditions as the court may deem best for the protection of the community and the punishment, control, and rehabilitation of the defendant." The law went into effect on August 14, 1935.[101]
In 1941, Congress enacted a new solicitation law for the District of Columbia that labeled a "vagrant" any person who "engages in or commits acts of fornication or perversion for hire." The law went into effect on December 17, 1941.[101]
Harry Truman[edit]
Presidency
In 1948, Congress enacted the first sodomy law in the District of Columbia, which established a penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000 for sodomy. Also included with this sodomy law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." The law went into effect on June 9, 1948.[101]
On May 5, 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence."[105]
On June 25, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was vetoed by President Truman because he regarded the bill as "un-American" and discriminatory. The bill prohibits "aliens afflicted with a psychopathic personality, epilepsy, or a mental defect" from entry into the United States.[107][108][109] Congress would later override his veto and implemented the act into law.[104]
Dwight Eisenhower[edit]
Presidency
On April 27, 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower signs Executive Order 10450 which prohibits Federal employees from being members of a group or organization considered subversive. The order lists "sexual perversion" as a security risk constituting grounds for termination or denial of employment. The order went into effect on May 27, 1953.[105]
Without explicitly referring to homosexuality, the executive order responded to several years of charges that the presence of homosexual employees in the State Department posed blackmail risks. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. explained that the new order was designed to encompass both loyalty and security risks and he differentiated between the two: "Employees could be a security risk and still not be disloyal or have any traitorous thoughts, but it may be that their personal habits are such that they might be subject to blackmail by people who seek to destroy the safety of our country."[110]
The press recognized the revolutionary nature of the new executive order. The Washington Post said that it established not a loyalty test but a "suitability test." Some in government referred to their new "integrity-security" program. Some of those the press expected to be excluded from federal employment included "a person who drinks too much," "an incorrigible gossip," "homosexuals," and "neurotics."[110]
In 1953, Congress changed the solicitation law in the District of Columbia so that the jail term of up to 90 days was retained, but the maximum fine was raised to $250, and the reference to the power of judges to "impose conditions" on the defendant was removed. The law went into effect on June 29, 1953.[101]
Lyndon B. Johnson[edit]
Senator of Texas
On February 2, 1950, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson voted for Uniform Code of Military Justice.[111]
Presidency
On October 19, 1964, Walter Jenkins, a longtime top aide to President Johnson, had been arrested by District of Columbia Police in a YMCA restroom. He and another man were booked on a disorderly conduct charge.[112]
In October 1964, Johnson released a statement of sympathy for Jenkins who "has worked with me faithfully for 25 years, with dedication, devotion and tireless labor" He also fed conspiracy theories that Jenkins had been framed. He claimed that before his arrest Jenkins had attended a cocktail party where the waiters came from the Republican National Committee, though the party was hosted by Newsweek to celebrate the opening of its new offices.[113] Johnson told Fortas that Jenkins needed to resign. On October 14, 1964, Jenkins resigned. Johnson immediately ordered a poll to determine the public's reaction to the affair and learned the next day that its effect on the voters was negligible.[114]
Johnson's Republican opponent in the 1964 presidential election, Barry Goldwater, knew Jenkins from the Senate and from serving as commanding officer of his Air Force Reserve unit, but initially denied knowing him.[115] He did not comment on the incident while campaigning, though it fit well with the charges he had been making of a lack of morality in Johnson's administration, though he was referring to Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes.[116] Instead, since FBI agents had just questioned him about Jenkins, he publicly asked Hoover to explain why Jenkins had not undergone a rigorous security check before joining the White House staff.[117]
Goldwater's campaign offices distributed bumper stickers and buttons bearing slogans such as, "LBJ - LIGHT BULB JENKINS: NO WONDER HE TURNED THE LIGHTS OUT" and "ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ, BUT DON'T GO NEAR THE YMCA". During the remainder of the campaign Goldwater occasionally alluded to the scandal. In speeches he referred to Johnson's "curious crew who would run the country" to the knowing amusement of his audience.[118] At the time, observers noted the difference between the way Goldwater alluded to the scandal and the way the Republican National Committee and Goldwater's running mate, William E. Miller, used it to exploit "popular fears."[119] Goldwater later said he chose not to make the incident a campaign issue. "It was a sad time for Jenkins' wife and children, and I was not about to add to their private sorrow," he wrote in his autobiography. "Winning isn't everything. Some things, like loyalty to friends or lasting principle, are more important."
Campaigning in San Diego on October 28, 1964, Johnson told reporters that "President Eisenhower had the same type of problem with his appointments secretary. The only difference is, we Democrats felt sorry for him and thought it was a case of sickness and disease, and we didn't try to capitalize on a man's misfortune. We never mentioned it."[120][121][122]
After the election, the American Mental Health Foundation wrote a letter to President Johnson protesting the "hysteria" surrounding the case:[123]
The private life and inclinations of a citizen, Government employee or not, does not necessarily have any bearing on his capacities, usefulness, and sense of responsibility in his occupation. The fact that an individual is homosexual, as has been strongly implied in the case of Mr. Jenkins, does not per se make him more unstable and more a security risk than any heterosexual person.
On October 3, 1965, Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which added "sexual deviation" as a medical ground for denying prospective immigrants entry into the United States. The bill went into effect on June 30, 1968.[104]
In 1966, Johnson still insisted vehemently in private that the Jenkins arrest resulted from a GOP frame-up and "someday we will prove it."[120]
Richard Nixon[edit]
Presidency
In August 1970, Richard Nixon, on the issue of same-sex marriage, said "I can't go that far; that's the year 2000! Negroes [and whites], okay. But that's too far!"[124]
On May 13, 1971, in a conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman:

"Archie's Guys." Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. The son-in-law apparently goes both ways. This guy. He's obviously queer--wears an ascot--but not offensively so. Very clever. Uses nice language. Shows pictures of his parents. And so Arch goes down to the bar. Sees his best friend, who used to play professional football. Virile, strong, this and that. Then the fairy comes into the bar. I don't mind the homosexuality. I understand it. Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddammit, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.
—Richard Nixon, [125]

You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France. Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
—Richard Nixon, [125]

But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.
—Richard Nixon, [125]
In 1972, San Francisco's Gay Activists Alliance disbanded and formed the Gay Voter's League, a group that campaigned for the reelection of President Richard Nixon.[126] In October 1972, representative of the Committee to Re-elect the President addressed gay voters on behalf of Richard M. Nixon's campaign in San Francisco. The event was organized by the Gay Voters League of San Francisco.[127]
Gerald Ford[edit]
House Minority Leader and Representative of Michigan's 5th congressional district
On August 25, 1965, Rep. Gerald Ford voted for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.[128]
Presidency
On March 5, 1976, when asked about the issue of gay rights, with respect to hiring, employment, and housing, Gerald Ford said "I recognize that this is a very new and serious problem in our society. I have always tried to be an understanding person as far as people are concerned who are different than myself. That doesn't mean that I agree with or would concur in what is done by them or their position in society. I think this is a problem we have to face up to, and I can't give you a pat answer tonight. I just would be dishonest to say that there is a pat answer under these very difficult circumstances"[129]
In 1976, during that year's presidential campaign, President Gerald Ford was "zapped" by activists in Ann Arbor, Michigan over federal immigration rules. The protests forced President Ford to admit that he was not aware that homosexuality was used as a basis for exclusion in immigration rulings.[126]
Post presidency
Gerald Ford, as former president, formally opposed the Briggs Initiative in 1977, which sought to ban homosexuals from teaching in public school. In October 2001, he broke with conservative members of the Republican party by stating that gay and lesbian couples "ought to be treated equally. Period." He became the highest ranking Republican to embrace full equality for gays and lesbians, stating his belief that there should be a federal amendment outlawing anti-gay job discrimination and expressing his hope that the Republican Party would reach out to gay and lesbian voters.[130] He also was a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, which The New York Times described as "a group of prominent Republicans, including former President Gerald R. Ford, dedicated to making sexual orientation a non-issue in the Republican Party".[131]
Jimmy Carter[edit]
Post governorship of Georgia
In February 1976, Carter said he opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but in June 1976 he withdrew his support of a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.[132]
Presidency
In 1977, under the guidance of Jimmy Carter, a policy was removed which barred employment of gays from employment in the foreign service and Internal Revenue Service ended its policy that forced LGBT education and charity groups to publicly state that homosexuality is a "sickness, disturbance, or diseased pathology." That same year, fourteen gay and lesbian activists were invited to the White House for the first official visit ever. Jimmy Carter publicly opposed the Briggs Initiative. However, in March 1980, Carter issued a formal statement indicating he would not issue an executive order banning anti-gay discrimination in the US federal government and that he would not support including a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.[132][133]
Post presidency
In 2004, Carter came out for civil unions and stated that he "opposes all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and believes there should be equal protection under the law for people who differ in sexual orientation".[134] In 2007, he called for ending the ban on gays in the military.[135] In March 2012, Jimmy Carter came out in favor of same sex marriage.[136]
Ronald Reagan[edit]
Main article: Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration § LGBT_Rights
Post governorship of California
The first chapter of what would become the national Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) formed in 1978 to fight California's Briggs Initiative, a ballot initiative that would have banned homosexuals from teaching in public schools. The chapter worked diligently and successfully convinced Governor Reagan to publicly oppose the measure.[126] Reagan penned an op-ed against the Briggs Initiative in which he wrote, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."[137]
Presidency
On the 1980 campaign trail, he spoke of the gay civil rights movement:

My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn't just asking for civil rights; it's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.[138]
No civil rights legislation for LGBT individuals passed during Reagan's tenure. Additionally, Reagan has been criticized by some LGBT groups for allegedly ignoring (by failing to adequately address or fund) the growing AIDS epidemic, even as it took thousands of lives in the 1980s. Reagan's Surgeon General from 1982-1989, Dr. C. Everett Koop, claims that his attempts to address the issue were shut out by the Reagan Administration. According to Koop, the prevailing view of the Reagan Administration was that "transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs" and therefore that people dying from AIDS were "only getting what they justly deserve."[139]
In 1981, during Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party, White House interior decorator, Ted Graber, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case.[137]
George H. W. Bush[edit]
Vice presidency
In 1988, the Republican Party's nominee, Vice President George H. W. Bush, endorsed a plan to protect persons with AIDS from discrimination.[126]
Presidency
As President, George H. W. Bush signed legislation that extended gay rights. On April 23, 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed because of the victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. It was the first federal statute to "recognize and name gay, lesbian and bisexual people."[140] On July 26, 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. On November 29, 1990, Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which withdrew the phrase "sexual deviation" from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that it could no longer be used as a basis for barring entry of immigration to the U.S. for homosexuals.[126]
In a television interview, Bush said if he found out his grandchild was gay, he would "love his child", but tell him homosexuality wasn't normal and discourage him from working for gay rights. In February 1992, the chairman of the Bush-Quayle campaign met with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.[132] In May 1992, he appointed Anne-Imelda Radice to serve as the Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.[141] Losing ground in the 1992 Republican president primary to President Bush's far-right challenger, Pat Buchanan, the Bush campaign turned to the right, and President Bush publicly denounced same-sex marriage.[142] The 1992 Log Cabin Republican convention was held in Spring, Texas, a Houston exurb. The main issue discussed was whether or not LCR would endorse the re-election of President George H. W. Bush. The group voted to deny that endorsement because Bush did not denounce anti-gay rhetoric at the 1992 Republican National Convention.[143] Many in the gay community believed President Bush hadn't had done enough on the issue of AIDS. Urvashi Vaid argues that Bush's anti-gay rhetoric "motivated conservative gay Democrats and loyal gay Republicans, who had helped defeat Dukakis in 1988, to throw their support behind Clinton."[132]
In 1992, the City Council passed the "The Health Benefits Expansion Act", which was signed into law by the Mayor of Washington, D.C. The bill, which established domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia, became law on June 11, 1992. Every year from 1992 to 2000, the Republican leadership of the U.S. Congress added a rider to the District of Columbia appropriations bill that prohibited the use of federal or local funds to implement the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act.[144] On October 5, 1992, Bush signed the H.R. 6056 into law, which included the Republican rider to the appropriations bill.[145]
Post presidency
In 2013, former President George H. W. Bush served as a witness at a same-sex wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, who own a general store together in Maine.[146] In 2015 the Boston Globe reported that Bush "offered to perform the ceremony but had a scheduling conflict."[147]
Bill Clinton[edit]
Governorship of Arkansas
In 1992, Governor Bill Clinton, as a candidate for President, issued a public statement of support for repeal of Arkansas's sodomy law.[148] Also in 1992, the Human Rights Campaign, American's largest LGBT rights organization, issued its first presidential endorsement in 1992 to Bill Clinton.[149]
Presidency
Bill Clinton's legacy on gay rights is a matter of controversy. LGBT rights activist Richard Socarides credits Clinton as the first President to publicly champion gay rights,[149] but Clinton's signing of DOMA and DADT have led critics like Andrew Sullivan to argue Clinton was a detriment to rather than an ally for the LGBT rights movement.[150]
In December 1993, Clinton implemented a Department of Defense directive known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which allowed gay men and women to serve in the armed services provided they kept their sexuality a secret, and forbade the military from inquiring about an individual's sexual orientation.[151] The policy was developed as a compromise after Clinton's proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military met with staunch opposition from prominent Congressional Republicans and Democrats, including Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Sam Nunn (D-GA). According to David Mixner, Clinton's support for the compromise led to a heated dispute with Vice President Al Gore, who felt that "the President should lift the ban ... even though [his executive order] was sure to be overriden by the Congress".[152] Some gay-rights advocates criticized Clinton for not going far enough and accused him of making his campaign promise to get votes and contributions.[153] Their position was that Clinton should have integrated the military by executive order, noting that President Harry Truman used executive order to racially desegregate the armed forces. Clinton's defenders argue that an executive order might have prompted the Senate to write the exclusion of gays into law, potentially making it harder to integrate the military in the future.[154] Later in his presidency, in 1999, Clinton criticized the way the policy was implemented, saying he did not think any serious person could say it was not "out of whack".[155]
On September 21, 1996, Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as the legal union of one man and one woman, allowing individual states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.[156] Paul Yandura, speaking for the White House gay and lesbian liaison office, said that Clinton's signing of DOMA "was a political decision that they made at the time of a re-election." In defense of his actions, Clinton has said that DOMA was an attempt to "head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states", a possibility he described as highly likely in the context of a "very reactionary Congress."[157] Administration spokesman Richard Socarides said, "... the alternatives we knew were going to be far worse, and it was time to move on and get the president re-elected."[158] Others were more critical. The veteran gay rights and gay marriage activist Evan Wolfson has called these claims "historic revisionism".[158] In a July 2, 2011 editorial The New York Times opined, "The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 as an election-year wedge issue, signed by President Bill Clinton in one of his worst policy moments."[159]
Despite DOMA, Clinton, who was the first President to select openly gay persons for Administration positions,[160] is generally credited as the first President to publicly champion gay rights.[149] During his Presidency, Clinton controversially issued two substantial executive orders on behalf of gay rights, the first was in 1995 that lifted the ban on security clearances for LGBT federal employees[161] and the second was in 1998 that outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce.[162] Under President Clinton's leadership, federal funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention and treatment more than doubled.[163] And Clinton also pushed for passing hate crimes laws for gays and for the private sector Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which, buoyed by his lobbying, failed to pass the Senate by a single vote in 1996.[164] Advocacy for these issues, paired with the politically unpopular nature of the gay rights movement at the time, led to enthusiastic support for Clinton's reelection in 1996 by the Human Rights Campaign.[149]
Clinton was the first President to select openly gay persons for Administration positions, appointing over 150 LGBT appointees.[165] The first openly gay US ambassador, James Hormel, received a recess appointment from the President after the Senate failed to confirm the nomination.
On June 2, 2000, Clinton declared June to be Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, the first president to do so.[166]
Post presidency
In 2008, Clinton publicly opposed the passage of California's Proposition 8 and recorded robocalls urging Californians to vote against it.[167] In July 2009, he came out in favor of same-sex marriage.[168] On March 7, 2013, Clinton called for the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act by the US Supreme Court.[169]
George W. Bush[edit]
In 1994, Bush pledged to veto any effort to repeal Texas's sodomy law, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values."[170]
Governor of Texas
In 1997, Governor Bush signed into law a bill adding "A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex" into the Texas Family Code.[171]
In a 1998 Texas Gubernatorial election political awareness test, he answered no to the questions of whether Texas government should include sexual orientation in Texas' anti-discrimination laws and whether he supports Texas recognizing same-sex marriage.[172]
In 1999, the Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, which would have increased punishment for criminals motivated by hatred of a victim's gender, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation, was killed in committee by Texas Senate Republicans. Governor Bush was criticized for letting the hate crimes bill die in a Texas Senate committee. Bush spokesman Sullivan said the governor never took a position on the bill. According to Louvon Harris, sister of James Byrd, said that Bush's opposition to the bill reportedly revolved around the fact that it would cover gays and lesbians. The governor's office "contacted the family and asked if we would consider taking sexual orientation out of the bill, and our answer was no, because the bill is for everybody. Everybody should be protected by the law." said Harris. In a 2000 presidential debate, Al Gore would attack Bush for allowing the bill to die in committee, with Bush responding Texas already had a hate crimes statute, and nothing more was needed.[170] George W. Bush also stated his opposition New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said the Boy Scouts of America must accept gays in their organization. "I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization and they should be able to set the standards that they choose to set," Bush said.[173] Bush would also express his support for bans on gay foster parenting and adoption.[174]
During the 2000 campaign he did not endorse a single piece of gay rights legislation. In a 2000 Republican presidential debate, George W. Bush, said he opposes same-sex marriage, but supports state's rights when it came to the issue of same-sex marriage. During the campaign he had refused to comment on Vermont's civil unions law.[173] On April 13, 2000, Governor Bush became first presumptive GOP presidential nominee ever to meet publicly with gay Republicans in Austin, Texas.[175] On August 4, 2000, Bush received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, the GOP's largest gay group, for president.[176] He also received the endorsement of the newly formed Republican Unity Coalition.[176][177] In a 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush stated he supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. However, he stated that he opposed sodomy laws, a reversal of his position as governor of Texas.[173][178][179]
Presidency
George W. Bush was either neutral towards or opposed gay rights as president. In his eight years of office, Bush's views on gay rights were often difficult to ascertain, but many experts feel that the Bush White House wanted to avoid bad publicity without alienating evangelical conservative Christian voters. Thus, he did not repeal President Clinton's Executive Order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the federal civilian government, but Bush's critics felt as if he failed to enforce the executive order.[180] He retained Clinton's Office of National AIDS Policy and was the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration, Scott Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy.[181] Bush also became the second President, after President Clinton, to select openly gay appointees to his administration. Bush's nominee as ambassador to Romania, Michael E. Guest, became the second openly gay man U.S. Ambassador and the first to be confirmed by the Senate. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for same-sex federal employees. He did not attempt to repeal Don't ask, don't tell, nor make an effort to change it.[173]
In April 2002, White House officials held an unannounced briefing in April for the Log Cabin Republicans. On June 27, 2002, President Bush has signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to domestic partners of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty, permanently extending a federal death benefit to same-sex couples for the first time.[182]
In 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws against consenting adults was unconstitutional. President Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer refused to comment on the decision, noting only that the administration had not filed a brief in the case.[183] In 2004, Bush said "What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do,"[184]
Previously Bush said he state's rights when it came to marriage, however, after Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, on February 24, 2004, Bush announced his support for an amendment to the US Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[185] Due to his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Log Cabin Republicans declined to endorse the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004.[143] Bush's defense of the FMA led the group to vote 22 to 2 against an endorsement of his reelection.[186] The Palm Beach County chapter in Florida did endorse him, resulting in the revocation of their charter.[187] On September 22, 2004, the Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus (ALBRC), a group of young urban Black gay Republicans, voted in a special call meeting in Dallas, Texas, to endorse President Bush for re-election.[188] In an October president debate, Bush said he didn't know whether homosexuality is a choice or not.[173]
In 2007, Bush threatened to veto the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which would have included sexual orientation in hate crimes, and Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007.
In December 2008, the Bush administration refused to support the U.N. declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity at the United Nations that condemns the use of violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.[189]
Post presidency
In his post presidency interviews, he refused to take a position on the issue of same-sex marriage.[190][191]
Barack Obama[edit]
Illinois state senator
Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996.[192] When he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998, was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage and supported including sexual orientation to the states non-discrimination laws.[193][194] During his time as a state senator he cosponsored of a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protections for LGBT people which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, housing, and all public places and supported Illinois gender violence act.
US Senator from Illinois
Obama supported civil unions, but opposed same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[192] He supports civil unions that would carry equal legal standing to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believes that decisions about the title of marriage should be left to the states.[195][196]
During his time as senator, Obama co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, and Early Treatment for HIV Act.[197][198]
In the 109th United States Congress, Obama received a score of 89% by the Human Rights Campaign.[198]
In 2006, Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the US Constitution.[199]
In 2007, Senator Obama said he opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't ask, don't tell policy when it passed and supported repealing it. He also said that homosexuality is not a choice, support adoption rights for same-sex couples, and would work as president to extend the 1,000 federal rights granted to marriage couples to couples in civil unions. He also voted for Kennedy Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the victim's sexual orientation and gender identity and the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act.[194][197]
In the 2008 presidential election, he expressed his opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in California, and Florida on the November ballot,[200][201][202] but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believes that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[203] In the 110th United States Congress, Obama received a score of 94% by the Human Rights Campaign.[198] In the 2008 election, Obama received the endorsement of the following gay rights organizations: Houston GLBT Political Caucus,[204] Human Rights Campaign,[205] and the National Stonewall Democrats.[206][207]
Presidency
President Barack Obama has taken many definitive pro-LGBT rights stances. In 2009, his administration reversed Bush administration policy and signed the U.N. declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality.[208] In June 2009, Obama became the first president to declare the month of June to be LGBT pride month; President Clinton had declared June Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.[166][209] Obama did so again in June 2010,[210] June 2011,[211] June 2012,[212] June 2013,[213] June 2014,[214] and June 2015.[215]
On October 28, 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability to the federal hate crimes law.[216]
In October 2009, he nominated Sharon Lubinski to become the first openly gay U.S. marshal to serve the Minnesota district.[217] On January 4, 2010, he appointed Amanda Simpson the Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce, making her the first openly transgender person appointed to a government post by a U.S. President.[218][219][220] He has appointed the most U.S. gay and lesbian officials of any U.S. president.[221]
At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On April 15, 2010, Obama issued an executive order to the Department of Health and Human Services that required medical facilities to grant visitation and medical decision-making rights to same-sex couples.[222] In June 2010, he expanded the Family Medical Leave Act to cover employees taking unpaid leave to care for the children of same-sex partners.[223] On December 22, 2010, Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law.[224]
On February 23, 2011, President Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.[225]
In March 2011, the U.S. issued a nonbinding declaration in favor of gay rights that gained the support of more than 80 countries at the U.N.[226] In June 2011, the U.N. endorsed the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people for the first time, by passing a resolution that was backed by the U.S., among other countries.[226]
In March and April 2012, Obama expressed his opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in North Carolina, and Minnesota.[227]
On May 9, 2012, Obama publicly supported same-sex marriage, the first sitting U.S. President to do so. Obama told an interviewer that:[228]

over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.
In the 2012 election, Obama received the endorsement of the following gay rights organizations: Equal Rights Washington, Fair Wisconsin, Gay-Straight Alliance,[229][230] Human Rights Campaign,[231] and the National Stonewall Democrats. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) gave Obama a score of 100% on the issue of gays and lesbians in the US military and a score of 75% on the issue of freedom to marry for gay people.[232]
Obama also called for full equality during his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." It was the first mention of rights for gays and lesbians or use of the word gay in an inaugural address.[233][234]
On March 1, 2013, Obama, speaking about Hollingsworth v. Perry, the U.S. Supreme Court case about Proposition 8, said "When the Supreme Court asks do you think that the California law, which doesn't provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they're same-sex couples—if the Supreme Court asks me or my attorney general or solicitor general, 'Do we think that meets constitutional muster?' I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly. And the answer is no." The administration took the position that the Supreme Court should apply "heightened scrutiny" to California's ban—a standard under which legal experts say no state ban could survive.[235]
On August 8, 2013, Obama criticized Russia's anti-gay law.[236]
On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 into law, which repealed the ban on consensual sodomy in the UCMJ.[237] On February 16, 2014, Obama criticized Uganda's anti-gay law.[238]
Obama included openly gay athletes in the February 2014 Olympic delegation, namely Brian Boitano and Billie Jean King (who was replaced by Caitlin Cahow, who was also openly gay.) [239][240] This was done in criticism of Russia's anti-gay law.[240]
On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce and both "sexual orientation" and gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors.[68]
Obama was also criticized for meeting with the anti-gay Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni at a dinner with African heads of state in August 2014.[241]
Later in August 2014 Obama made a surprise video appearance at the opening ceremony of the 2014 Gay Games.[242][243]
In 2015 the United States appointed Randy Berry as its first Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons.[244]
Also in 2015 the Obama administration announced it had opened a gender-neutral bathroom within the White House complex; the bathroom is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next door to the West Wing.[245]
Also in 2015, President Obama responded to a petition seeking to ban conversion therapy (inspired by the death of Leelah Alcorn) with a pledge to advocate for such a ban.[246]
Also in 2015, when President Obama declared May to be National Foster Care Month, he included words never before included in a White House proclamation about adoption, stating in part, "With so many children waiting for loving homes, it is important to ensure all qualified caregivers have the opportunity to serve as foster or adoptive parents, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. That is why we are working to break down the barriers that exist and investing in efforts to recruit more qualified parents for children in foster care." Thus it appears he is the first president to explicitly say gender identity should not prevent anyone from adopting or becoming a foster parent.[247]
Democratic Party[edit]
The Democratic Party's 2012 national platform opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and supports "equal responsibility, benefits, and protections" for same-sex couples,[248] and explicitly supports same-sex marriage.[249]
National Stonewall Democrats[edit]
Main article: National Stonewall Democrats
Republican Party[edit]
The Republican Party's 2012 platform opposes any legal recognition of same sex couples, supports a ban on same-sex marriage through a federal constitutional amendment, along with state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.[250] However, Fred Karger's unsuccessful run for the 2012 Republican nomination for President made him America's first openly gay Republican presidential candidate.[251]
Log Cabin Republicans[edit]
Main article: Log Cabin Republicans
Created in 1977 in California, in response to the anti-gay Briggs Initiative, which attempted to ban homosexuals from teaching in public schools. Log Cabin Republicans support full equal rights for LGBT people, including Employment Nondiscrimination Act and same-sex marriage.
GOProud[edit]
Main article: GOProud
GOProud is a gay conservative organization founded in 2009. GOProud supports repealing DOMA, supports same-sex marriage, and believes marriage should be left to the states. GOProud also has no official position on Employment Nondiscrimination Act or hate-crime legislation.
Libertarian Party[edit]
Main article: Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights § United States Libertarian Party
The Libertarian Party has endorsed libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights and has promoted marriage equality since it was created in 1971. The Libertarian Party also wishes to lift the bans on same-sex marriage, but with the ultimate goal of marriage privatization.[252]
In 1972 John Hospers of the Libertarian Party became the first openly gay man to run for president of the United States, as well as the Libertarian party's first presidential candidate.[253]
Outright Libertarians[edit]
Main article: Outright Libertarians
Constitution Party[edit]
Main article: Constitution Party (United States)
The Constitution Party (United States) is strongly opposed to all forms of gay rights including legal bans on homosexual consent. The party is very conservative and has ties to Christian Reconstructionism, a political movement within Conservative Christian Churches.
Other political parties[edit]
While many American socialist and communist political parties initially preferred to ignore the issue, most now support gay rights causes. Socialist groups generally integrate a stronger approach to gender identity issues than mainstream parties.
Lavender Greens[edit]
While many American socialist and communist political parties initially preferred to ignore the issue, most now support gay rights causes. The Socialist Party USA was the first party to nominate an openly gay man, David McReynolds, as its Presidential candidate in 1980. Socialist groups generally integrate a stronger approach to gender identity issues than mainstream parties.
Summary table of LGBT rights goals in the United States[edit]
Same-sex sexual activity legal Yes (Since 2003 nationwide) [254]
Equal age of consent for same-sex couples as for heterosexual couples Yes/No
Homosexuality declassified as an illness Yes (Since 1973) [255]
Transgender declassified as an illness Yes (Since 2012) [256]
Conjugal visits allowed for same-sex couples Yes/No
Conversion therapy banned by law Yes/No
Gay panic and trans panic defenses banned by law Yes/No
Sexual orientation allowed as grounds for asylum Yes (Since 1994 [257][258])
Gender identity allowed as grounds for asylum Yes/No
Federal hate-crime law includes crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity Yes (Since 2009) [259]
Ban on police profiling on the basis of both perceived and/or actual gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation Yes/No
LGBT anti-bullying law in public schools and public colleges Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in adoption, custody, and visitation rights Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in employment Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in health insurance Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in homeless shelters Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in housing Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in prisons, juvenile halls, and immigration detention centers, including but not limited to transgender people required to be housed according to their gender identity Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in provision of goods and services Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in public accommodations, public facilities, and public transportation Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in public hospitals Yes/No
LGBT anti-discrimination law in public schools and public colleges Yes/No
LGBT-inclusive sex education required to be taught in public schools Yes/No
Same-sex marriage Yes/No
Step-child adoption by same-sex couples Yes/No
Joint adoption by same-sex couples Yes/No
Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals allowed to serve openly in the military Yes (Since 2011) [260]
Transgender people allowed to serve openly in the military No
Intersex individuals allowed to join the military No [261]
Right to change legal gender without requirement of surgery Yes/ No
Sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people required to be covered under health insurance Yes/No
Transgender-disenfranchising[262][263][264] photo-ID voting laws repealed/absent Yes/No
Transgender people allowed to use restrooms, lockers, and other gender-segregated spaces that correspond to their gender identity Yes/No
LGBTI-specific training requirement for medical professionals No
Commercial surrogacy for gay male couples Yes/No
MSMs allowed to donate blood and tissues not considered lifesaving No
United States census counts number of lesbian, gay male, bisexual, and transgender people No
See also[edit]

Portal icon LGBT portal
Portal icon United States portal
Same-sex marriage in the United States
LGBT rights in the Americas
LGBT rights by country or territory
Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States
LGBT movements in the United States
LGBT history in the United States
LGBT history#United States of America
Bisexuality in the United States
Gay men in American history
History of bisexuality
History of lesbianism
History of lesbianism in the United States
History of the Transgender Community in the United States
Sodomy laws in the United States
History of violence against LGBT people in the United States
List of proposed anti-gay book bans in the United States
Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida — anti-gay pamphlet published by the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee in 1964
Save Our Children - 1977-78 anti-gay campaign in Florida led by Anita Bryant
Federal Marriage Amendment
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Empowering Spirits Foundation
Gay Blue Jeans Day
Gay pride
Human Rights Campaign
Human rights in the United States
Bibliography[edit]
Bullough, Vern, "When Did the Gay Rights Movement Begin?", April 18, 2005. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
Bullough, Vern L. (ed.) Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Harrington Park Press, 2002.
Gallagher, John & Chris Bull, Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, 1996, Crown, 300 pp. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
Matzner, Andrew, "Stonewall Riots", glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, & Queer Culture, Claude J. Summers, ed. 2004. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
Percy, William A. & William Edward Glover, "Before Stonewall by Glover & Percy", November 5, 2005. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ McBride, Alex. "Lawrence v Texas (2003)". PBS. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
2.Jump up ^ "Freedom To Marry". Freedom to Marry. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
3.Jump up ^ "Employment Non-Discrimination Laws on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Hrc.org. Retrieved April 26, 2011.[dead link]
4.Jump up ^ "Facts about Discrimination in Federal Government Employment Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, Sexual Orientation, or Transgender (Gender Identity) Status". United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
5.Jump up ^ "LGBT Adoption Statistics". Lifelong Adoptions. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
6.Jump up ^ "What We Do". Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
7.Jump up ^ "Trial". Hawaiigaymarriage.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
8.Jump up ^ Goldberg, Carey (December 4, 1996). "Hawaii Judge Ends Gay-Marriage Ban". New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Dickler, Jessica (November 2, 2004). "Prenups aren't just for married couples anymore". CNN. Retrieved March 30, 2012.
10.Jump up ^ Chang-Muy, Fernando (2009). Social Work with Immigrants and Refugees. Springer Publishing Company, LLC. Retrieved August 12, 2011.
11.Jump up ^ "Network Audience". State of the Media. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
12.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court / Homosexuality and Women's Pensions Cases / Bakke / Protests NBC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive". Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu. October 3, 1977. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
13.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court / Homosexuality Case / Nixon Tapes / Other Cases To Come CBS News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive". Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu. October 3, 1977. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
14.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court / Washington Homosexual Firing / Bakke / Other Cases ABC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive". Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu. October 3, 1977. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
15.Jump up ^ http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/orgs/glstn/teachers.legal.rights. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)
16.Jump up ^ Supreme Court Hears Debate on Law Banning Gay Teachers Aaron Epstein, Bangor Daily News, January 15, 1985 Accessed via Google News Archive Search July 6, 2012
17.Jump up ^ Board of Education v. National Gay Task Force, 470 U.S. 159 (1985)
18.Jump up ^ Justices Affirm Ruling Upholding Gay Teachers' Rights Phil Hager, Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1985, accessed via latimes.com July 6, 2012
19.Jump up ^ Wiessler, Judy (April 2, 1985), "Texas A&M loses legal fight against gay student group", Houston Chronicle: Section 1, page 1, retrieved October 28, 2009
20.Jump up ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)
21.Jump up ^ ""Sodomy Laws in the United States," Gay and Lesbian Archives of the Pacific Northwest, accessed 8 July 2011". Glapn.org. November 23, 2007. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
22.Jump up ^ "Raleigh police press sodomy charges | newsobserver.com projects". Projects.newsobserver.com. May 27, 2008. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
23.Jump up ^ ""Prosecutors Drop Sodomy Charges," Raleigh News and Observer, 30 May 2008". Projects.newsobserver.com. May 30, 2008. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
24.Jump up ^ Tim Murphy (April 12, 2011). "Murphy, Tim. "The Unconstitutional Anti-Gay Law That Just Won't Die," Mother Jones, 13 April 2011". Motherjones.com. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
25.Jump up ^ Robert Barnes (June 26, 2013). "Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act". Washington Post. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
26.Jump up ^ Supreme Court of the United States (June 26, 2013). "United States v. Windsor" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
27.Jump up ^ "Supreme Court decisions: Kitchen v. Herbert ruling". Los Angeles Times. June 25, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
28.^ Jump up to: a b Latta v. Otter, No. 13-482, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417, at *22-29, 2014 WL 1909999, at * 7-10 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014)
29.Jump up ^ https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/indiana_order.pdf
30.Jump up ^ DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-10285, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274, at *46, n.6, 2014 WL 1100794, at *17, n.6 (E.D. Mich. March 21, 2014)
31.^ Jump up to: a b c d http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf
32.Jump up ^ Bishop v. U.S. ex rel. Holder, 962. F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1274-77 (N.D. Okla. 2014)
33.Jump up ^ Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 13-1834, 2014 U.S. Dist LEXIS 68171 (D. Oregon May 19, 2014)
34.Jump up ^ De Leon v. Perry, No. 13-982, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *23-29, 2014 WL 715741, at *8-10 (W.D. Tex. February 26, 2014)
35.Jump up ^ Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1194-95 (D. Utah 2013)
36.Jump up ^ Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 469-70 (E.D. Va. 2014)
37.^ Jump up to: a b [1][dead link]
38.Jump up ^ "Gay marriage legal challenges: Where things stand". Washington Post. June 25, 2014. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
39.Jump up ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (May 2, 2013). "Rhode Island Joins States That Allow Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
40.Jump up ^ Jones, Tim (February 15, 2013). "Illinois Lawmakers Lead Midwest Toward Gay Marriage Law". Bloomberg. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
41.Jump up ^ Brueggemann, Brian. "SPRINGFIELD: They do: Illinois House approves same-sex marriage | Top Stories | News Democrat". Bnd.com. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
42.Jump up ^ Burnett, Sara. "Illinois Senate votes to legalize gay marriage - Peoria, IL". pjstar.com. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
43.Jump up ^ Esposito, Stefano; Schlickerman, Becky (February 21, 2014). "Gay marriages in Cook Co. don't have to wait, judge rules". Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved February 21, 2014.
44.Jump up ^ Manchir, Michelle (February 21, 2014). "Judge: Same sex couples can marry now in Cook County". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 21, 2014.
45.Jump up ^ http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital-records/reciprocal/index.html. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)[dead link]
46.Jump up ^ "With same-sex marriage now available, state to end benefits for domestic partners - Baltimore Sun". Articles.baltimoresun.com. May 3, 2013. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
47.Jump up ^ Clarke, John. "New Maryland law makes transgender discrimination illegal". Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved June 4, 2014.
48.Jump up ^ Walker, Andrea. "Bid to overturn Maryland transgender rights bill fails". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved June 4, 2014.
49.Jump up ^ (PDF) http://www.iandrinstitute.org/BW%202008-2%20%28Marriage%29.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help)
50.Jump up ^ DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer (November 5, 2012). "Maine, Maryland vote to legalize gay marriage". seattlepi.com. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
51.Jump up ^ "Amendment banning gay marriage passes". USA Today. November 2, 2004. Retrieved October 12, 2007.
52.Jump up ^ "Voters pass all 11 bans on gay marriage". AP via MSNBC. November 3, 2004. Retrieved December 7, 2007.
53.Jump up ^ "Prop 8 ruling explained: Why gay marriage will resume in California. NBC June 26, 2013". Nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com. June 26, 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
54.Jump up ^ Savage, David G. (June 26, 2013). "Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California. LA Times June 26, 2013 Politics Now". Latimes.com. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
55.Jump up ^ Between the Lines of the the Proposition 8 Opinion. NY Times June 26 2013
56.Jump up ^ Dolan, Maura (June 28, 2013). "Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules". Latimes.com. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
57.Jump up ^ Davis, Don (November 7, 2012). "Minnesota voters reject marriage amendment". Duluth News Tribune. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
58.Jump up ^ "8 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 39 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans - Gay Marriage - ProCon.org". Gaymarriage.procon.org. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
59.Jump up ^ "Mom calls to lift ban on tissue donations from gay men". August 18, 2014. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
60.^ Jump up to: a b "Obama Widens Medical Rights for Gay Partners". The New York Times. April 16, 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2011.
61.Jump up ^ "Renter's Rights Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination – Findlaw for the Public". Public.findlaw.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
62.Jump up ^ Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586–626.
63.Jump up ^ Sexual Orientation and the Law § 5:17
64.Jump up ^ Purdum, Todd S. (August 4, 1995). "Clinton Ends Ban on Security Clearance for Gay Workers". New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
65.Jump up ^ "1998-05-28 Statement on Amendment to EEO Executive Order". May 5, 1998. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
66.^ Jump up to: a b "Facts about Discrimination in Federal Government Employment Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, Sexual Orientation, or Transgender (Gender Identity) Status". United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved December 7, 2013.
67.Jump up ^ Geidner, Chris (April 23, 2012). "Transgender Breakthrough". Metro Weekly. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
68.^ Jump up to: a b "Executive Order -- Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity". The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. July 21, 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
69.Jump up ^ "Obama signs edict banning discrimination against federal LGBT employees". Al Jazeera. July 21, 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
70.Jump up ^ Pershing, Ben (October 22, 2009). "Hate crimes bill set to become law". Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
71.Jump up ^ "President Barack Obama signs hate crimes legislation into law". Baywindows.com. October 28, 2009. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
72.^ Jump up to: a b c State Hate Crime Laws, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved May 4, 2007.
73.Jump up ^ Patrick Rodgers. "Conjugal Visits: Preserving family bonds behind bars". LegalZoom. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
74.Jump up ^ Branigin, William; Wilgoren, Debbi; Bacon Jr, Perry (December 22, 2010). "Obama signs DADT repeal before big, emotional crowd". Washington Post. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
75.Jump up ^ "In 60 days, gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military". CNN. July 23, 2011.
76.Jump up ^ "The New DADT: The Military's Ban on Transgender Service" by Katie Miller - OutServe Magazine, January 2012 http://outservemag.com/2012/01/the-new-dadt-the-militarys-ban-on-transgender-service/
77.Jump up ^ Same-sex activity had become legal in Illinois in 1962, Connecticut in 1971, Colorado and Oregon in 1972, Delaware and Hawaii in 1973, Massachusetts and Ohio in 1974, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota in 1975, California, Maine, Washington, and West Virginia in 1976, Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming in 1977, Nebraska in 1978, New Jersey in 1979, Alaska, New York, and Pennsylvania in 1980, Wisconsin in 1983, Kentucky in 1992, Nevada and District of Columbia in 1993, Tennessee in 1996, Montana in 1997, Georgia and Rhode Island in 1998, Maryland and Missouri (Western District counties only) in 1999, Arizona and Minnesota in 2001, and Arkansas in 2002
78.Jump up ^ State-sponsored Homophobia: A world survey of laws prohibiting same sex activity between consenting adults The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, authored by Lucas Paoli Itaborahy, May 2014
79.Jump up ^ "State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans". Equality Matters. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
80.Jump up ^ Ring, Trudy (April 19, 2013). "WATCH: Montana Sodomy Repeal Signed Into Law". The Advocate.
81.Jump up ^ "Reparations for gays and lesbians". Gay and Lesbian Times. Gaylesbiantimes.com. June 12, 2003. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
82.Jump up ^ Reparations for gays and lesbians[dead link]
83.Jump up ^ Craighill, Peyton (March 5, 2014). "Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right". The Washington Post (The Washington Post). Retrieved March 7, 2014.
84.Jump up ^ "Views on Voting and the Political Parties". The New York Times (The New York Times). Retrieved March 7, 2014.
85.Jump up ^ "Americans Favor Rights for Gays, Lesbians to Inherit, Adopt". December 12, 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
86.Jump up ^ "U.S. public opinion polls on same-sex marriage". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
87.Jump up ^ (04/06/09) (March 16, 2009). "A Third of Americans Back Same-Sex Marriage | Angus Reid Public Opinion". Angus-reid.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
88.Jump up ^ (04/13/06) (March 24, 2006). "Most New Yorkers Support Same-Sex Marriage | Angus Reid Public Opinion". Angus-reid.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
89.Jump up ^ (06/26/06) (June 19, 2006). "New Jersey Backs Same-Sex Marriage | Angus Reid Public Opinion". Angus-reid.com. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
90.Jump up ^ "Branstad, Braley lead in Iowa". Public Policy Polling. July 10, 2013. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
91.Jump up ^ Schneider, Bill. "Fresh Thinking". Third Way. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
92.Jump up ^ Craighill, Peyton M., Clement, Scott (March 5, 2014). "Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
93.Jump up ^ "Gay marriage support hits new high in Post-ABC poll". The Washington Post. March 18, 2013. Retrieved March 28, 2013.
94.Jump up ^ "Republican Party 2004 Platform" (PDF).
95.Jump up ^ "LDS Newsroom – Same-Gender Attraction". April 8, 2008. Retrieved April 8, 2008.
96.Jump up ^ "SBC Officially Opposes "Homosexual Marriage". The Southern Baptist Convention. July 26, 2003. Retrieved July 5, 2006.
97.Jump up ^ Schlatter, Evelyn, "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda", Intelligence Report, Winter 2010 (140), retrieved January 31, 2011
98.Jump up ^ Thomas Adam (2005). Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History ; a Multidisciplinary Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 1007.
99.Jump up ^ Alexander M. Bielakowski (2013). Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the U.S. Military: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 667–69.
100.Jump up ^ The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, Vol. 11, John C. Fitzpatrick, Ed., United States Government Printing Office, 1934.
101.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i "District of Columbia". Glapn.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
102.Jump up ^ "Amendment VIII: Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments". Press-pubs.uchicago.edu. Retrieved March 11, 2014.
103.Jump up ^ Patricia S. Ticer, State Senator (D-30) in the. "Virginia". Glapn.org. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
104.^ Jump up to: a b c "Opening the Doors of Immigration: Sexual Orientation and Asylum in the United States". Wcl.american.edu. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
105.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Key Dates in US Policy on Gay Men and Women in the United States Military". usni.org. Retrieved March 22, 2014.
106.Jump up ^ "The Articles of War". Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 2008-10-04. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
107.Jump up ^ Jacobson, David (September 5, 1997). Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 49–50. ISBN 978-0801857706.
108.Jump up ^ Tichenor, David J. (May 6, 2002). Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton Studies in American Politics. Princeton University Press. p. 195. ISBN 978-0691088051. "quotes part of this passage"
109.Jump up ^ Peters,Gerhard; Woolley, John T. "Harry S. Truman: "Veto of Bill To Revise the Laws Relating to Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality.," June 25, 1952". The American Presidency Project. University of California - Santa Barbara. Retrieved August 24, 2013.
110.^ Jump up to: a b David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: the Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 123-4. Eisenhower in his memoirs written years later explicitly referenced "instability, alcoholism, homosexuality."
111.Jump up ^ "HR 4080. UNITE, CONSOLIDATE, REVISE AND CLARIFY THE ARTICLES OF WAR, THE ARTICLES FOR THE GOV'T OF THE NAVY, AND THE DISCIPLINARY LAWS OF THE COAST GUARD, AND ENACT AND ESTABLISH A UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. MC CARRAN MOTION TO REFER TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE". Govtrack.us. February 2, 1950. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
112.Jump up ^ White, 367; TIME: "The Jenkins Report," October 30, 1964, accessed November 15, 2010
113.Jump up ^ White, 367. Dallek evaluates various claims that Jenkins was set up and dismisses them. Dallek, 180-1
114.Jump up ^ Thomas W. Benham, "Polling for a Presidential Candidate: Some Observations on the 1964 Campaign," in Public Opinion Quartery, v. 29 (1965), 192
115.Jump up ^ New York Times: "Goldwater Says Morality is Demanded by the Nation," October 15, 1964, accessed November 13, 2010
116.Jump up ^ Dallek, 178; White, 369
117.Jump up ^ New York Times: E.W. Kenworthy, "Goldwater Asks F.B.I. to Explain Check on Jenkins," October 20, 1964, accessed January 24, 2011
118.Jump up ^ Perlstein, 493
119.Jump up ^ New York Times:James Reston, "Washington: Barry Goldwater Examples of Morality," October 23, 2010, accessed November 13, 2010
120.^ Jump up to: a b "Lyndon Johnson on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
121.Jump up ^ Michael Beschloss, Reaching for Glory (NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 98
122.Jump up ^ Johnson's San Diego comment is discussed briefly at Evans and Novak, 481
123.Jump up ^ New York Times: "Jenkins Defended by Mental Group," October 22, 1964, accessed November 13, 2010
124.Jump up ^ Ehrlichman, John (January 1, 1982). Witness to Power: The Nixon Years. p. 239.
125.^ Jump up to: a b c "Nixon Tape Discusses Homosexuals at Bohemian Grove". Prisonplanet.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
126.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Republican Party (United States)". Glbtq.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
127.Jump up ^ "League due Nixon pitch". Connection.ebscohost.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
128.Jump up ^ "TO PASS H.R. 2580, THE AMENDED IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT". Govtrack.us. August 25, 1965. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
129.Jump up ^ "Gerald Ford on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
130.Jump up ^ Price, Deb. "Gerald Ford: Treat gay couples equally". The Detroit News, October 29, 2001. Retrieved December 28, 2006
131.Jump up ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Vocal Gay Republicans Upsetting Conservatives", The New York Times, June 1, 2003, p. N26.
132.^ Jump up to: a b c d Haider-Markel, Haider-Markel (2002). Gay and Lesbian Americans and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook.
133.Jump up ^ Shilts, Randy (1993). Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military.
134.Jump up ^ Carter backs civil unions for gay couples - Southern Voice Atlanta[dead link]
135.Jump up ^ Gaywired.com
136.Jump up ^ Raushenbush, Paul Brandeis (March 19, 2012). "President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions". The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 19, 2012. "I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies."
137.^ Jump up to: a b Dale Carpenter. "Reagan and Gays: A Reassessment". Igfculturewatch.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
138.Jump up ^ Shilts 2005: 368
139.Jump up ^ White, Allen (June 8, 2004). "Reagan AIDS Legacy/Silence equals death." San Francisco Gate
140.Jump up ^ Hate Crimes Protections Timeline, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Retrieved April 5, 2007.
141.Jump up ^ "Anne-Imelda M. Radice". 2001-2009.state.gov. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
142.Jump up ^ "Republican Party (United States)". Glbtq.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
143.^ Jump up to: a b Anderson, Lisa (April 19, 2004). "Gays long loyal to GOP agonize over supporting Bush". Chicago Tribune.
144.Jump up ^ "Amendment Would Mean No Money to D.C. Domestic-Partner Registry". CitizenLink. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
145.Jump up ^ Julian Dixon. "H.R. 6056 (102nd)". Govtrack.us. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
146.Jump up ^ Helen Thorgalsen. "George H.W. Bush Serves As Witness At Gay Wedding (PHOTO)". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
147.Jump up ^ "New ‘cottage’ at Maine compound for Jeb Bush". 23 May 2015.
148.Jump up ^ "Arkansas". Glapn.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
149.^ Jump up to: a b c d Socarides, Richard. "Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act". Newyorker.com. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
150.Jump up ^ Sullivan, Andrew (March 29, 2013). "Dissents of the Day." The Dish.
151.Jump up ^ Feder, Jody (2010). "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A Legal Analysis. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4379-2208-0.
152.Jump up ^ see pages 495-497. Books.google.com. November 25, 2009. ISBN 9780307429582. Retrieved July 22, 2013.
153.Jump up ^ John Cloud (November 1996). "Stranger Among Friends. – book reviews". Washington Monthly. Retrieved August 30, 2011.
154.Jump up ^ Klein, Joe (2002). The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton. Doubleday. ISBN 0-7679-1412-0.
155.Jump up ^ "President seeks better implementation of 'don't ask, don't tell'". CNN. December 11, 1999. Retrieved August 30, 2011.
156.Jump up ^ "PUBLIC LAW 104 – 199 – DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT". U.S. Government Printing Office.
157.Jump up ^ Frank Rich (February 26, 2012). "Bill Clinton's shifting justifications for signing the Defense of Marriage Act". New York.
158.^ Jump up to: a b Chris Geidner (September 29, 2011). "Becoming Law". MetroWeekly.
159.Jump up ^ "Unfinished Business: The Defense of Marriage Act". The New York Times. July 2, 2011.
160.Jump up ^ "Clinton-Gore Accomplishments: Gay and Lesbian Americans". Clinton2.nara.gov. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
161.Jump up ^ Volsky, Igor. (August 5, 1995) Clinton Issued Order Letting Gays Get Security Clearances 16 Years Ago Today
162.Jump up ^ "Clinton Grants Gay Workers Job Protection - New York Times". Nytimes.com. May 29, 1998. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
163.Jump up ^ "2000.12.01: (Fact Sheet) Clinton Administration Record on HIV/AIDS". Archive.hhs.gov. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
164.Jump up ^ "S. 2056 (104th): Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996 (On Passage of the Bill)". Govtrack.us. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
165.Jump up ^ "The Clinton-Gore Administration A Record of Progress for Gay and Lesbian Americans." The White House
166.^ Jump up to: a b "Clinton Declares June 2000 Gay & Lesbian Pride Month".
167.Jump up ^ "Bill Clinton on Prop 8: "It's Unfair and It's Wrong." Queerty.
168.Jump up ^ Tracey, Michael (July 14, 2009). "Bill Clinton drops opposition to same-sex marriage." The Nation.
169.Jump up ^ "Bill Clinton Calls for DOMA Repeal". Hrc.org. June 25, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
170.^ Jump up to: a b "Bush angers slain man's family". Salon. October 16, 2000. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
171.Jump up ^ "Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE". Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
172.Jump up ^ "Texas Gubernatorial Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test". Votesmart.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
173.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "George W. Bush on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
174.Jump up ^ Blakeslee, Nate (March 1, 2007). "Family Values". Texasmonthly.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
175.Jump up ^ "How gay GOP group lost its faith in Bush / High hopes in 2000 dissolve in dispute over marriage ban". Sfgate.com. October 10, 2004. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
176.^ Jump up to: a b "Gay Republicans Endorse Bush". Articles.latimes.com. August 5, 2000. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
177.Jump up ^ "With Respect to Mary Cheney". Fair.org. February 22, 1999. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
178.Jump up ^ "Gore Flips, and Flops, on Defense of Marriage Act, AR Says". Thefreelibrary.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
179.Jump up ^ "George W. Bush on Defense". Issues2000.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
180.Jump up ^ Lee, Christopher (May 25, 2005). "Official Says Law Doesn't Cover Gays". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
181.Jump up ^ Heredia, Christopher (April 10, 2001). "NEWSMAKER PROFILE / Scott Evertz / New AIDS Czar Called a Skillful Bridge Builder / Evertz the first gay man to hold position". The San Francisco Chronicle.
182.Jump up ^ Mike Allen (June 27, 2002). "Bush Approves Federal Same-sex Death Benefits". Articles.sun-sentinel.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
183.Jump up ^ Carpenter, Flagrant Conduct, 269
184.Jump up ^ "Democrats Ready to Vote on Marriage". Glapn.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
185.Jump up ^ "Transcript of Bush statement". CNN. February 24, 2004. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
186.Jump up ^ "Log Cabin nixes Bush, others endorse Kerry". PrideSource. September 16, 2004.
187.Jump up ^ Allen, Mike; Milbank, Dana (March 27, 2005). "Log Cabins Go Against the GOP Grain". The Washington Post.
188.Jump up ^ "Black Gay Republicans Break with Log Cabin Republicans, Endorse Bush" (Press release). Prnewswire.com. September 21, 2004. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
189.Jump up ^ "In a First, Gay Rights Are Pressed At the U.N.". Atlantic Philanthropies. December 19, 2008. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
190.Jump up ^ Terkel, Amanda (April 25, 2013). "George W. Bush Refuses To Weigh In On Gay Marriage". The Huffington Post. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
191.Jump up ^ "George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Immigration, and Why Obama Kept His Terrorism Policies". ABC. July 7, 2013. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
192.^ Jump up to: a b Baim, Tracy (January 14, 2009). "Obama changed views on gay marriage; 1996 statement: 'I favor legalizing same-sex marriage'" (PDF). Windy City Times. pp. 6–8.
193.Jump up ^ Baim, Tracy (January 21, 2009). "Obama marriage story goes national; 1998 survey shows another shift" (PDF). Windy City Times. p. 5.
194.^ Jump up to: a b "Barack Obama on Civil Rights". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
195.Jump up ^ "CNN/YouTube debate transcript". CNN. July 24, 2007. Retrieved July 23, 2007.
196.Jump up ^ Philip Elliott. Obama's N.H. visit brings little criticism, much love. Associated Press, printed in Rockford Register Star, February 13, 2007. (Accessed March 2, 2007)
197.^ Jump up to: a b "SCORECARD Measuring Support for Equality in the 110th Congress" (PDF). Retrieved June 29, 2014.
198.^ Jump up to: a b c "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Votesmart.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
199.Jump up ^ Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage Barack Obama: US Senator for Illinois (Accessed March 2, 2007)
200.Jump up ^ "Michelle Obama speaks to gay Democrats". Reuters. June 27, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
201.Jump up ^ "The audacity of hope – 'from Selma to Stonewall'". TMP. June 27, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
202.Jump up ^ "Michelle Obama Speaks to LGBT Delegates at Convention Lunch". Towleroad. August 27, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2013.
203.Jump up ^ Dschabner (November 2, 2008). "Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.". ABC News. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
204.Jump up ^ Chipman, Kim (February 29, 2008). "Gay Clinton Backers Defect to Obama, Eroding Her Base". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
205.Jump up ^ "Human Rights Campaign endorses Obama". Washington Blade. June 6, 2008. Retrieved August 11, 2008.[dead link]
206.Jump up ^ PRESS RELEASE—Human Rights Campaign Endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States[dead link]
207.Jump up ^ Baim, Tracy; Besen, Wayne R. (2010). Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage. Obama and the Gays. p. 110. ISBN 9781453801710. Retrieved 1 September 2014.
208.Jump up ^ Pleming, Sue (March 18, 2009). "In turnaround, U.S. signs U.N. gay rights document". Reuters. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
209.Jump up ^ "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009". Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
210.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month".
211.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month | The White House". Whitehouse.gov. May 31, 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
212.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012".
213.Jump up ^ "Presidential Proclamation - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2013". Whitehouse.gov. May 31, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
214.Jump up ^ "Obama proclaims June LGBT Pride Month". Metro Weekly. May 30, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
215.Jump up ^ "Obama issues Presidential Proclamation declaring June LGBT Pride Month – LGBTQ Nation". Lgbtqnation.com. 2015-05-29. Retrieved 2015-06-04.
216.Jump up ^ Weiner, Rachel (October 28, 2009). "Hate Crimes Bill Signed Into Law 11 Years After Matthew Shepard's Death". Huffington Post.
217.Jump up ^ "Sharon Lubinski: Senate Confirms First Openly Gay US Marshal". Huffington Post. December 28, 2009.
218.Jump up ^ Tapper, Jake (January 4, 2010). "President Obama Names Transgender Appointee to Commerce Department". ABC News. Archived from the original on January 7, 2010. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
219.Jump up ^ "Obama's New Queer Appointee Amanda Simpson Brings Some 'T' to the Administration". Queerty.com. December 31, 2009. Archived from the original on January 19, 2010. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
220.Jump up ^ "Obama Hires Trans Woman Amanda Simpson". National Center for Transgender Equality. December 31, 2009. Archived from the original on January 4, 2010. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
221.Jump up ^ Hananel, Sam (October 26, 2010). "Obama has appointed most U.S. gay officials". Washington Times. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
222.Jump up ^ Obama Widens Medical Rights for Gay Partners
223.Jump up ^ "Obama Expands Family Medical Leave Act to Cover Gay Employees". Fox News. June 22, 2010.
224.Jump up ^ "Obama signs bill repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' policy". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. December 22, 2010. Retrieved December 22, 2010.[dead link]
225.Jump up ^ "President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law "Unconstitutional"". Abcnews.go.com. February 23, 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
226.^ Jump up to: a b "U.N. Gay Rights Protection Resolution Passes, Hailed As 'Historic Moment'". The Huffington Post. June 17, 2011. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
227.Jump up ^ Luke Johnson (April 9, 2012). "Obama Opposes Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
228.Jump up ^ Stein, Sam (May 9, 2012). "Obama Backs Gay Marriage". Huffington Post.
229.Jump up ^ yvonna. "Home | Gay-Straight Alliance Network". Gsanetwork.org. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
230.Jump up ^ Gautam Raghavan (January 25, 2012). "A Special Message on National Gay-Straight Alliance Day | The White House". Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
231.Jump up ^ Jamiah Adams (May 27, 2011). "HRC Endorses President Obama for 2012". Democrats.org. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
232.Jump up ^ "2012 Endorsements". Votesmart.org. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
233.Jump up ^ Robillard, Kevin (January 21, 2013). "First inaugural use of the word 'gay'". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
234.Jump up ^ Michelson, Noah (January 21, 2013). "Obama Inauguration Speech Makes History With Mention Of Gay Rights Struggle, Stonewall Uprising". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
235.Jump up ^ "Obama: I would rule against all gay marriage bans". USA Today. March 1, 2013.
236.Jump up ^ "Barack Obama's Surprising Lack Of Patience For Russia's Anti-Gay Laws". Forbes. August 9, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
237.Jump up ^ Theodore Deutch. "H.R. 3304: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014". Govtrack.us. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
238.Jump up ^ Obama Condemns Uganda's Tough Antigay Measure
239.Jump up ^ "Obama includes openly gay athletes in 2014 Olympic delegation". December 17, 2013. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
240.^ Jump up to: a b "U.S. delegation delivers strong message in Sochi". February 7, 2014. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
241.Jump up ^ "Uganda's Museveni meets with Obama days after repeal of anti-gay law". Gay Star News. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
242.Jump up ^ WKYC (August 9, 2014). "President Obama makes video appearance at Gay Games". Retrieved October 6, 2014.
243.Jump up ^ "Obama Makes Surprise Video Appearance at Gay Games Opening Ceremony: WATCH". Towleroad: A Site With Homosexual Tendencies. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
244.Jump up ^ Eyder Peralta. "U.S. Appoints First-Ever Special Envoy For LGBT Rights : The Two-Way". NPR. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
245.Jump up ^ White House complex now has a gender-neutral bathroom - CNN.com. Edition.cnn.com (2008-10-29). Retrieved on 2015-04-10.
246.Jump up ^ April 9, 2015 (2014-10-17). "Leelah's death moves Obama to respond". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved 2015-04-10.
247.Jump up ^ Dawn Ennis. "Obama Calls for End to Discriminatory Parenting Laws". Advocate.com. Retrieved 2015-05-04.
248.Jump up ^ "The 2008 Democratic National Platform: Renewing America's Promise". Democratic Party. Retrieved August 9, 2009.
249.Jump up ^ Stein, Sam (August 4, 2012). "Democratic Party Platform: Pro-Gay Marriage, Immigration Reform, Shots At Romney, Squishy On Guns". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
250.Jump up ^ "GOP Platform " White House 2012". Whitehouse12.com. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
251.Jump up ^ "Fred Karger, gay Republican, for president". Retrieved 30 October 2014.
252.Jump up ^ "Libertarians applaud steps toward marriage equality". Libertarian Party. April 13, 2009. Retrieved July 9, 2009. "America's third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage."
253.Jump up ^ John Hospers, RIP. reason. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
254.Jump up ^ "Sodomy laws ruled unconstitutional". TaskForce. June 26, 2003. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
255.Jump up ^ "LGBT-Sexual Orientation". psychiatry.org. May 30, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
256.Jump up ^ "Transgender Community Lobbies to be Allowed to Serve in Military - Time Warner Cable News". Rochester.twcnews.com. June 21, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
257.Jump up ^ "Asylum Based on Sexual Orientation and Fear of Persecution". Rainbowsig.org. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
258.Jump up ^ "How Will Ugandan Gay Refugees Be Received By U.S.?". NPR.org. 24 February 2014. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
259.Jump up ^ "President Obama Signs Hate Crime Prevention Act". Fox News. October 28, 2009. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
260.Jump up ^ Karen McVeigh and Paul Harris. "US military lifts ban on openly gay troops | World news". The Guardian. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
261.Jump up ^ http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/TransMilitary2007.pdf
262.Jump up ^ STUDY: Voter ID Laws in 10 States May Disenfranchise Transgender Citizens. Advocate.com (2014-09-10). Retrieved on 2015-04-10.
263.Jump up ^ http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/voter-id-laws-september-2014.pdf
264.Jump up ^ Voting While Trans: Preparing for Voter ID Laws. Scribd.com. Retrieved on 2015-04-10.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to LGBT rights in the United States.
WhiteHouse.gov: Civil Rights — includes section on LGBT rights
A Look at the State of the Gay Rights Movement – video report by Democracy Now!
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Human Rights Campaign – official website HRC LGBT Resources Guide
Refuge Restrooms – User-compiled and evaluated gender-inclusive restroom locator (with disability access feature)


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
LGBT rights in the United States

 






 


















































 


 







United States

 
















 



 



 










 




 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
LGBT rights in North America

 


























 



 




















 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics

 






 










 






 































 






 




 
















 


 























 


 



 




 



















 


 









 





 




 







LGBT pride flag

 


 






 


 


 


 





 


 



 






 




 






 


 












 


 






 





 
















 







 




 







 


 











 


 










 



 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Early LGBT rights advocacy in the United States (pre-Stonewall riots)

 















 










 










 


















 









 










 





 















 


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United States topics

 












































 
















 










































 




















 









 







 













 










 













 





















 





























 











































 

















 





























 









  


Categories: History of LGBT civil rights in the United States
LGBT law in the United States
LGBT rights by country
LGBT rights in the United States






















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk





 



Read

Edit

View history










 






Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Italiano
Polski
Русский
Simple English
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 14:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki 
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States