A school district in Massachusetts was within its rights to ban a student’s “There Are Only Two Genders” T-shirt, as protecting LGBTQ+ students from harassment overrides free speech considerations, a federal appeals court has ruled.
“In following the lead of other courts that have grappled with similar cases, we emphasize that in many realms of public life one must bear the risk of being subjected to messages that are demeaning of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, even when those messages are highly disparaging of those characteristics,” Chief Judge David J. Barron wrote for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The ruling was issued Sunday and upholds one from a federal district court.
“But, like these other courts, we do not understand Tinker [a 1969 Supreme Court ruling on student speech], in holding that schools must allow for robust discussion and debate over even the most contentious and controversial topics, to have held that our public schools must be a similarly unregulated place,” he continued.
The student, identified in the lawsuit as L.M. and in media reports as Liam Morrison, was a seventh-grader at John T. Nichols Middle School in Middleborough when he wore the shirt to school on March 21, 2023. He was called into a meeting with the school’s interim principal and other administrators, who told him that some students had complained about the shirt and that he must remove it if he wanted to return to class. The shirt violated the dress code’s prohibition on hate speech, the administrators said. Morrison refused and left school for the day. He was not disciplined.
He wore the shirt to school again on May 5, 2023, with the word “Censored” taped over the words “Only Two.” Administrators told him he could not wear that shirt either, and he agreed to take it off and return to class. A few days later, two other students wore shirts with the original message and were also told they were in violation of the dress code. One agreed to remove the shirt and go back to class, while the other refused and went home. Neither of them was disciplined either.
Soon afterward, Morrison and his parents filed suit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech. The district court ruled that the school district was within its rights to enforce the dress code to protect vulnerable students. The shirt’s message “may communicate that only two gender identities — male and female —are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent,” the court ruled, adding that “students who identify differently … have a right to attend school without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.” Morrison and his parents appealed to the First Circuit, resulting in the Sunday ruling.
Administrators knew that Nichols Middle School had some students who were transgender or gender-nonconforming, the appellate ruling noted, and that these students often felt unwelcome or bullied at school. They were likely to react badly to Morrison’s shirt, and administrators were right to conclude that the shirt would disrupt the learning environment, Judge Barron explained.
“The question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred,” he wrote. “The question is who should decide whether to bar them — educators or federal judges. We cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make ‘an environment conducive to learning at NMS to us rather than to the educators closest to the scene.” He added that while “the shirt’s message is not at the farthest end of demeaning,” it goes beyond “‘tepidly negative.’”
Morrison is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which handles many anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion clients. The ADF is “reviewing all legal options including appealing this decision,” Senior Counsel David Cortman said in a statement to Bloomberg Law.It could appeal to the full First Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Students don’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building,” Cortman added. “The government cannot silence any speaker just because it disapproves of what they say.”
Martha-Ann Alito, wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, is incensed about seeing rainbow Pride flags during Pride Month, according to a new recording obtained by Rolling Stone. If it were up to her, she would be flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in response. Or she might design her own flag, one sporting the Italian word for “shame.” “You know what I want?” Mrs. Alito says. “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.”
Referencing her husband, Mrs. Alito says, “He’s like, ‘Oh, please don’t put up a flag.’ I said, ‘I won’t do it because I am deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense, I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day, maybe every week, I’ll be changing the flags.’ They’ll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag. It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word ‘vergogna.’ ‘Vergogna’ in Italian means shame — vergogna. V-E-R-G-O-G-N-A. Vergogna.”
A new Washington state parental rights law derided by critics as a “forced outing” measure will be allowed to take effect this week after a court commissioner on Tuesday declined to issue an emergency order temporarily blocking it.
The civil liberties groups, school district, youth services organizations and others who are challenging the law did not show that it would create the kind of imminent harm necessary to warrant blocking it until a trial court judge can consider the matter, King County Superior Court Commissioner Mark Hillman said. A hearing before the judge is scheduled for June 21.
The law, known as Initiative 2081, underscores, and in some cases expands, the rights already granted to parents under state and federal law. It requires schools to notify parents in advance of medical services offered to their child, except in emergencies, and of medical treatment arranged by the school resulting in follow-up care beyond normal hours. It grants parents the right to review their child’s medical and counseling records and expands cases where parents can opt their child out of sex education.
Critics say the measure could harm students who go to school clinics seeking access to birth control, referrals for reproductive services, counseling related to their gender identity or sexual orientation, or treatment or support for sexual assault or domestic violence. In many of those cases, the students do not want their parents to know, they note.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and other groups challenging the measure say it violates the state Constitution, which requires that new laws not revise or revoke old laws without explicitly saying so.
For example, state law ensures the privacy of medical records for young people authorized to receive care, including abortions, without parental consent. The law would give parents the right to be notified before their child receives care and the ability to review school medical records, the plaintiffs said, but it does not specifically say that it amends the existing privacy law.
The initiative was backed by Brian Heywood, a conservative megadonor who has said the measure was not designed to give parents veto power over their child’s decision to access counseling or medical treatment. “It’s just saying they have a right to know,” he said.
The Democratic-led Legislature overwhelmingly approved it in March, with progressive lawmakers wanting to keep it off the fall ballot and calculating that courts would likely block it.
Hillman said during the hearing that he was sympathetic to the concerns of the groups challenging the measure, but the harms they had alleged were only speculative.
William McGinty, an attorney for the state, argued that the law is constitutional and the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were entitled to a temporary restraining order.
For many Americans, one of the happiest days of their lives is proclaiming their love for their spouse in front of family and friends. But then there are those of us who had to wait until marriage equality was the law of the land to obtain a marriage license and the benefits that derive from being married in the eyes of the state and federal government.
There was so much to celebrate when the Supreme Court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 the right to marriage equality under the Constitution. But there was also our duty to right the wrongs of pre-Obergefell America, particularly in the tax and finance arena.
Nearly two decades before Obergefell, theDefense of Marriage Act (DOMA) became federal law in 1996, denying same-sex couples the rights and benefits afforded to different-sex couples. The benefit denials didn’t just impact their finances but were an affront to their dignity. When Edie Windsor’s wife, Thea Spyer, died in 2009 and left her estate, Edie was denied the marital exemption from the federal estate tax because of DOMA. The federal government refused to recognize her as a “surviving spouse,” so Edie had to pay $363,053.
This wasn’t just a financial burden, as Edieexplained: “In the midst of my grief at the loss of the love of my life, I had to deal with my own government saying that we weren’t a family.”
Edie sued. In theUnited States v. Windsorcase of 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the part of DOMA that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. So, for couples in states where marriage equality was the law of the land, every married couple could finally receive the federal benefits their marriage entitled them to. Then, Obergefell came down, expanding marriage equality nationwide.
Despite the progress made in those cases, countless same-sex couples are still denied tax benefits and refunds they should have received before Windsor. Although some same-sex couples were able to amend three years’ worth of their tax returns after Windsor, couples who had been married for longer were unable to claim refunds for any of the years beyond that three-year window.
Depriving same-sex couples of the same financial security and stability afforded to different-sex couples is blatantly wrong. In fact, it amounts to a tax on same-sex marriages. That’s why we introduced thePromoting Respect for Individuals’ Dignity and Equality (PRIDE) Act.
Our legislation has two main objectives: rectifying existing inequity in the tax code. First, it would enable same-sex couples who married before the Windsordecision to amend their tax filings and claim the refunds they should have been entitled to—even though the deadline had passed. Secondly, it would embrace inclusivity by eliminating gendered language in the tax code, including substituting terms like “husband” or “wife” with “spouse.” Even though these terms are currently interpreted to be gender-neutral, it is essential to make sure all couples, regardless of sexual or gender identity, are represented and explicitly acknowledged within the tax code.
The PRIDE Act would have concrete positive implications for LGBTQI+ Americans by enabling same-sex couples to retroactively receive the money they are entitled to. Additionally, our bill reaffirms the validity of same-sex marriage under the laws of the United States. It acknowledges the worth and validity of all married couples. By righting the wrongs of the past and ensuring equal treatment for all Americans under the law moving forward, the PRIDE Act also sends a powerful message of inclusivity and acceptance of the LGBTQI+ community.
We’re incredibly proud the PRIDE Act has over 100 cosponsors and is endorsed by the Equality Caucus, the largest caucus in Congress with 196 Members dedicated to advancing LGBTQI+ equality. Despite Republicans’ attempts to scapegoat the LGBTQI+ community and turn Americans against its members, achieving full equality and justice for LGBTQI+ Americans and their families will always be a priority for Congressional Democrats.
We never imagined full marriage equality would happen in our lifetimes. It’s important to celebrate the strides the LGBTQI+ community has made, including in the Winsor and Obergefell decisions. But there is still so much work to do to achieve full equality. The PRIDE Act promotes economic justice and social equality by addressing disparities within the tax code and providing retroactive relief for same-sex couples. Most importantly, it affirms the dignity and worth of all married couples.
The fight for equal rights is basic respect, freedom, and human dignity. That’s what this work is all about and why we’ll always be in it.
Representatives Judy Chu and Becca Balint.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ and Allied community. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. We welcome your thoughts and feedback on any of our stories. Email us at voices@equalpride.com. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign is launching an effort at the start of National Pride Month to try to shore up support from LGBTQ voters.
The campaign plans to have a presence this month at more than 200 Pride events in 23 states, including all of the battleground states, and to launch a paid media blitz aimed at mobilizing LGBTQ voters, two campaign officials said in details first shared with NBC News. The campaign will cap the month of outreach with a fundraiser in New York City on June 28.
Some of Biden’s allies worry about waning support among LGBTQ voters.
Over the weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris kicked off Pride Month by greeting more than 150 LGBTQ leaders and allies in Los Angeles, and first lady Jill Biden made an unannounced stop at the Pittsburgh Pride festival.
“This community is under attack,” the first lady told the crowd, referring to state laws that she said target the LGBTQ community.
“Donald Trump is a bully to the LGBTQ community, to our families, to our country,” she continued. “We cannot let him win.”
A poll conducted in January by the LGBTQ media advocacy group GLAAD found Joe Biden has overwhelming support from LGBTQ registered voters overall and in battleground states, 68% and 72%, compared to 15% for Trump in both categories.
Yet the largest LGBTQ rights group in the country, the Human Rights Campaign, recently committed to spend $15 million in six battleground states to help Biden win in November, citing concerns about waning support from LGBTQ voters. HRC estimates that this year one-third of the 75 million “equality voters” — who vote based on support for LGBTQ rights — might not be guaranteed Biden voters.
“Our primary task with those voters is to help underscore the stakes of the election,” said Brandon Wolf, HRC’s national press secretary. “The contrast between the two candidates could not be clearer, and that’s especially true when we’re talking about issues of equality.”
The Biden campaign is aware of the statistic and is set to pour money into a digital and print media campaign nationally and in battleground states pitching Biden as “the most pro-equality president in American history” while painting Trump as determined to curb equality for LGBTQ communities.
“Winning campaigns invest early and often into its coalition of support,” said Sam Alleman, the Biden-Harris campaign’s national LGBTQ+ engagement director. “This Pride month is a reflection of real action to mobilize and activate LGBTQ+ voters well ahead of November.”
Any softening of support among LGBTQ voters is a source of frustration for Biden allies who argue he has delivered on their priorities, including backing same-sex marriage as vice president in 2012 ahead of President Barack Obama’s plans to publicly endorse the issue. As president, Biden has signed legislation protecting marriage rights for same-sex couples, ended a ban on transgender Americans’ serving in the military and issued executive orders to protect LGBTQ people’s civil rights.
On Friday, he issued a proclamation declaring June National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Pride Month, saying that “advancing equality for the LGBTQI+ community is a top priority for my Administration.”
The Biden campaign argues that Trump would take away LGBTQ rights if voters elect him to a second term. As president, Trump banned transgender people from serving in the military, and as a candidate, he has said he’s against gender-affirming care for kids.
Yet former first lady Melania Trump recently headlined a fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that advocates for LGBTQ inclusion in the GOP. The former president’s allies also have recently tried to ensure that the position on same-sex marriage outlined in the official Republican National Committee platform this election cycle isn’t too far right.
The efforts appear aimed at not alienating voters in a tight general election who aren’t as conservative on LGBTQ rights as the GOP base.
Wolf contended that Biden has a better record and vision to offer equality voters than Trump, citing passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022 and the creation of rules to protect members of the community in schools and health care settings.
“The Biden-Harris administration has appointed over 200 openly LGBTQ people to serve in all sorts of roles. That really matters,” Wolf said.
Still, even as Wolf fully embraces the Biden-Harris strategy, he acknowledges Biden has work to do in the queer community and will need to continue showing up.
“The Biden-Harris campaign has an incredible opportunity to get out into communities and talk about not just the things they’ve been able to accomplish,” he said, “but also their vision of what’s possible if we send them back to the White House.”
Despite years of progress toward inclusion and equality for LGBTQ+ Americans, a sense of safety at home remains elusive for many. By the end of last year, 75 of the 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced across the country in 2023 had become law, and in 2022, hate crimes against LGBTQ+ Americans reached a five-year high.
With hate crimes rising and more anti-LGBTQ+ bills under consideration, it’s essential to monitor the state of safety across the nation regularly. That’s why we’ve created this ranking for the third year. To grade all 50 states and Washington D.C. based on how safe they are for LGBTQ+ people, SafeHome.org’s new scoring system includes both legislative analysis and hate crime data from the FBI. Here are a few of the key takeaways from our study:
Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Delaware all received A+ grades for LGBTQ+ safety based on their comprehensive pro-equality laws and low rates of hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people.
South Dakota, Florida, and Wyoming were the worst states for LGBTQ+ safety in the nation, earning F grades due to their high number of discriminatory laws and hate crime reporting rates. Florida’s ranking changed dramatically since last year when it had the 15th-lowest safety score.
Nearly 50% of states passed new anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in 2023.
Hate crimes targeting LGBTQ+ people rose 10 percent between 2021 and 2022, and hate crimes against transgender people, in particular, surged 40 percent.
59% of LGBTQ+ people say their state’s laws help them feel safer, but 89% say federal action is needed to enshrine protections fully.
LGBTQ+ Safety Grades by State
SafeHome.org’s state ranking is unique from others. We based our grading system on the opinions of 1,000 American LGBTQ+ individuals. Based on their insights, we calculated how heavily different laws would weigh upon each state’s safety score: parenting freedoms, criminal justice rights, non-discrimination rights, youth protections, and health laws. Then, using information from the Human Rights Campaign, we tallied how many laws each state had in the above categories and weighted them based on their perceived impact on LGBTQ+ Americans.
This year, SafeHome.org researchers added a new factor to the safety “report card”: we determined the frequency of hate crimes committed against LGBTQ people in each state according to the latest FBI data.
https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/18042878/embed
Based on this new grading method, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Delaware ranked highest for LGBTQ+ safety according to our methodology, while South Dakota, Florida, and Wyoming scored lowest.
The Safest States for LGBTQ+ Americans
1. Rhode Island – Safety Grade: A+ (100)
Rhode Island had the highest safety grade in the nation due to its numerous laws protecting LGBTQ+ rights and its low incidence of hate crimes. It was notably one of only six states where every law enforcement agency reported crime data, and one of seven states that earned an A+, A, or A- in our safety analysis. The Ocean State has some of the most comprehensive laws in the country regarding LGBTQ+ health, safety, and family planning, including:
Foster care non-discrimination laws, which protect LGBTQ+ people wishing to participate in the foster care system as parents
Mandatory reporting of hate crime statistics
Anti-bullying youth laws, with explicit protections for LGBTQ+ youth
Laws that include transgender healthcare in state Medicaid programs
Rhode Island is home to the 12th-highest percentage of same-sex couples and was among the first 15 states to legalize gay marriage, which it did in 2013. Notably, in March 2024, the U.S. Senate appointed Rhode Island’s first openly LGTBQ+ judge to the federal court system.
2. New Hampshire – Safety Grade A+ (98.3)
New Hampshire boasts a wide variety of equality protections in its state laws and has one of the country’s lowest rates of reported hate crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals. New Hampshire scored a bit lower than Rhode Island partly because its laws do not explicitly protect people from discrimination on credit applications based on sexual orientation, and the state does not have a law requiring mandatory reporting of hate crime statistics.
Lawmakers in New Hampshire legalized same-sex marriage in 2010, making it the sixth state in the country to do so. In 2023, New Hampshire passed a bill that explicitly outlawed the use of someone’s sexual identity as a defense in a homicide case. Since 2013, 18 other states have adopted similar resolutions.
3. Delaware – Safety Grade A+ (98.1)
Delaware was one of the earliest states to legalize same-sex marriage in 2013, with the sixth-highest number of same-sex couples (per 1,000 households). The “First State” offers a comprehensive set of LGBTQ-friendly legal protections, including:
Laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity surrounding the use of surrogate mothers
Laws that protect people from conversion therapy
Bans on insurance exclusions for transgender healthcare
These protections, along with Delaware’s extremely low incidence of hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people, make it one of the safest states in 2024.
4. Alaska – Safety Grade A (93.5)
Alaskans elected their state’s first three openly LGBTQ+ legislators in 2022. Although they did not all campaign on LGBTQ+ issues, their presence aligns with their state’s general direction, as indicated by this year’s rankings. All three of these new legislators are sponsors of a bill currently under consideration that would add protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
While Alaska does not have quite as many legal protections for its LGBTQ+ residents as the states ranking above it and has a law that allows for transgender exclusion in sports, it does provide a relatively equal and safe environment. Alaska is also home to the country’s third-highest percentage of same-sex couples who are raising a child.
5. Hawaii – Safety Grade A (92.5)
Hawaii rounds out the top five safest states for LGBTQ+ Americans, thanks to its strong legal protections and low rates of reported hate crimes. Hawaii has a long legacy of being relatively LGBTQ+-friendly; in 1973, it became the sixth state to legalize same-sex sexual activity, and in 1993, it became the first state to formally consider legalizing same-sex marriage.
Hawaii’s LGBTQ+ legal protections include the presumption of a parental relationship for both parents with regard to any children born of that marriage and LGBTQ+ inclusive juvenile justice policies. It is also one of the 26 states that allow name and gender marker updates on both driver’s licenses and birth certificates and one of 19 states that have eliminated the “bias rage or panic defense for criminal acts,” a tactic used to achieve lighter sentencing when an assailant is motivated to violence by learning the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Worst States for LGBTQ+ Safety
1. South Dakota – Safety Grade F (46.8)
South Dakota has the unfortunate distinction of having the lowest LGBTQ+ safety grade out of all the states. Its legal landscape is more prone to anti-equality than pro-equality, and has a relatively high rate of reported hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people. The few protections South Dakota offers to LGBTQ+ folks include non-discrimination laws regarding admission to colleges and universities, anti-cyberbullying protections, and laws prohibiting discrimination in surrogate parenting.
Anti-equality laws on South Dakota’s books far outweigh their equality-protecting counterparts. The list of such laws includes:
HIV and AIDS criminalization laws
Laws permitting discrimination in adoption and foster placement
Laws restricting transgender people from using gendered facilities in public schools
Bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth
Likely due to its unsafe atmosphere, the state is home to the second-fewest same-sex couples per capita, ranking in front of only its neighbor, North Dakota. In our previous ranking, South Dakota took the 45th spot on the list of safest states.
Despite the challenging circumstances, LGBTQ+ advocates are making progress in South Dakota. In early 2024, a transgender advocacy group successfully sued the state of South Dakota for discrimination, receiving a $300,000 reward and forcing the state’s governor to issue an apology letter.
2. Florida – Safety Grade F (47.5)
In the second-worst spot for LGBTQ+ safety comes Florida, which has one of the worst legal environments and ranked dead last in participation rates for law enforcement agency crime reporting. Last year, Florida was the 15th worst state in our ranking, but newer and harsher legislation contributed to its plummeting safety score.
In recent years, Florida’s so-called Don’t Say Gay law has received significant media attention, with much scrutiny surrounding its attempts to prevent students and teachers from discussing sexual orientation and gender identity. A settlement reached in early 2024 clarified some of the specifics around the law that was passed in 2022 and remains in place today.
Additional anti-equality legislation on Florida’s books includes sodomy laws and laws that allow or require intentional misgendering of public school students. In 2023, Governor Ron Desantis signed a bill into law that limited drag shows in the state, which a Florida federal judge later blocked.
3. Wyoming – Safety Grade F (53.5)
Wyoming has few pro-equality laws on its books, a relatively high rate of reported hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people, and an overall low rate of crime reporting. All of these factors contribute to its low grade for LGBTQ+ safety, which is significantly worse this year. Last year, Wyoming was the 19th-worst state in the country.
The state has only a few pro-equality laws or policies, such as those guaranteeing equal opportunity in adoption and foster care—but this only applies to sexual orientation and not gender identity. Wyoming also has transgender exclusions in its state Medicaid coverage. Overall, while Wyoming does not have as many anti-equality laws as some of the other states toward the bottom of the safety ranking, its dearth of pro-equality laws contributes to its laggard position.
4. Ohio – Safety Grade F (53.7)
Having passed a bill in 2023 modeled after Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, drawing condemnation from civil rights groups, it might not be surprising to see Ohio toward the bottom of the LGBTQ+ safety ranking.
The state has one of the highest rates of reported hate crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals in the nation. Like Wyoming, Ohio has very few pro-equality laws on its books, though not so many anti-equality rules. However, the state’s laws include transgender exclusions in Medicaid coverage as well as HIV/AIDS criminalization laws. Since these types of laws regarding healthcare access were among the most important to LGBTQ+ people we surveyed, Ohio’s safety score was deficient.
5. Alabama – Safety Grade F (55.8)
At the fifth-worst spot for LGBTQ+ safety is Alabama, whose especially poor legal environment caused its dismal ranking. In 2024, Alabama considered expanding its own “Don’t Say Gay” law, which prohibits teacher-led discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary schools, but proposals to widen the scope to older students ultimately did not pass.
Other anti-equality laws on Alabama’s books include:
Bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth
Religious exemptions for professional training or practice
Laws permitting discrimination in adoption or foster placement
Are More Legal Changes for LGBTQ+ Americans on the Horizon?
So far in 2024, in addition to Florida’s affirmation of its “Don’t Say Gay” policy, a handful of states have restricted or affirmed limitations on listing one’s sex on driver’s licenses using a non-gendered category like “X” rather than “F” or “M.” Gender-affirming care for minors has also been under legislative scrutiny in several states. As of the end of April 2024, however, 20 anti-LGBTQ+ bills had passed at the state level, which would put the pace of enacting such bills below last year’s.
Looking ahead to November’s election, polling from progressive think tank Data for Progress indicates LGBTQ+ Americans prefer Joe Biden and the Democrats over the Republicans and their presumptive nominee, Donald Trump. When he was in office from 2016-2020, Trump ushered in several changes considered to be attacks against LGBTQ+ rights, including rescinding the protection of transgender students, permitting discrimination against LGBTQ+ couples related to adoption, and banning trans military members from actively serving. He reportedly said he would ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the United States recognizes “only two genders.”
Everyone deserves to feel safe at home, and laws can help ensure personal security for all members of our communities. Substantial progress has been made across the grand arc of history for LGBTQ+ Americans, but as our rankings indicate, there is still far from a consensus view across the United States as to key questions and decisions related to equality under the law. For those who have a choice of where to live, these rankings offer a reference point for finding the safest location.
What is the LGBTQ+ State Safety Ranking?: Our Methodology
The Safety Ranking is based on a composite safety score comprising a law score and a hate crime score.
A “law score” was calculated based on pro- and anti-equality laws in each state. The Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) 2023 State Equality Index State Scorecards show a breakdown of each U.S. state’s pro and anti-equality legislation. We surveyed one thousand people who identified themselves as LGBTQ+ to determine how to weigh each of the legislative categories—parenting laws, hate crimes & criminal justice laws, non-discrimination laws, religious refusal & relationship recognition, youth laws, and health & safety laws. We calculated their law scores by adding up the legislation in each state and weighing them according to our survey. This survey was conducted in 2023.
Though we based the scores on more detailed questions in each category, we asked LGBTQ+ Americans generally about laws that promote equality and ones that damage it:
Which type of laws promoting equality are most important for your safety?
Percent of respondents
Non-Discrimination laws that forbid discrimination in employment, housing, etc.
49%
Health & Safety laws that uphold the rights of LGBTQ+ people to receive healthcare, insurance, etc
22%
Youth Laws that protect LGBTQ children through anti-bullying measures, bans on conversion therapy, and sex education
13%
Criminal Justice laws that require mandatory reporting of hate crimes, eliminate bias rage or panic defense for criminal acts, prevent police profiling
10%
Parenting laws that legally recognize same-sex marriage and parenthood in various scenarios
3%
Which type of anti-equality laws are most damaging to your safety?
Percent of respondents
Health & Safety laws allowing discrimination in healthcare
40%
Youth laws that restrict the rights of LGBTQ+ youth
21%
Criminal Justice laws that criminalize HIV/AIDS nondisclosure, consensual sexual activity, etc)
17%
Limits on Non-Discrimination laws
14%
Parenting laws limiting the ability of LGBTQ+ people in adoption, fostering, etc
3%
Religious Refusal laws that permit the denial of services or employment to LGBTQ+ people based on religious belief
3%
A “hate crime score” was also calculated based on an analysis of the incidence of hate crimes against any group falling within the LGBTQ+ umbrella. The 2022 FBI Uniform Crime Report’s Hate Crime Statistics Collection was used to count the number of relevant incidents in each state and divide them based on whether they happened in a rural or urban area. Note that the reported incidence of hate crimes versus the actual incidence rate may vary by relevant agency and, therefore, may not be a perfect representation of the actual hate crime landscape. Not every law enforcement agency in each state reported hate crime incidents to the FBI, which also factored into each state’s score.
We then calculated the number of rural incidents per 100k rural population and the number of urban incidents per 100k urban population. We then weighed those incident rates based on the percentage of the state’s populations that lived in rural and urban areas (e.g., urban incidents will be weighted higher in states with a higher proportion of their population living in urban areas), as well as the percentage of law enforcement agencies reporting data to the FBI in each state.
The hate crime score was normalized to the same scale as the law score, then multiplied by the percent of agencies in the state that contributed data to the FBI, penalizing states with low participation. The final LGBTQ+ safety score for each state is the average of these law and hate crime scores, and we assigned letter grades on a logarithmic scale to facilitate understanding of how well each state scored.
During Pride Month, we celebrate the extraordinary courage and contributions of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex (LGBTQI+) community. We reflect on the progress we have made so far in pursuit of equality, justice, and inclusion. We recommit ourselves to do more to support LGBTQI+ rights at home and around the world.
For generations, LGBTQI+ Americans have summoned the courage to live authentically and proudly — even when it meant putting their lives and livelihoods at risk. In 1969 at the Stonewall Inn in New York, brave LGBTQI+ individuals protested the violence and marginalization they faced, boosting a civil rights movement for the liberation of LGBTQI+ people that has transformed our Nation.
Since then, courageous LGBTQI+ Americans continue to inspire and bring hope to all people seeking a life true to who they are. LGBTQI+ people also continue to enrich every aspect of American life as educators, entertainers, entrepreneurs, athletes, actors, artists, scientists, scholars, diplomats, doctors, service members, veterans, and so much more.
Advancing equality for the LGBTQI+ community is a top priority for my Administration. I signed the historic Respect for Marriage Act, which protects the marriage of same-sex and interracial couples. As Commander in Chief, I was proud to have ended the ban on transgender Americans serving in the United States military.
I signed historic Executive Orders strengthening civil rights protections for housing, employment, health care, education, and the justice system. We are also combating the dangerous and cruel practice of so-called “conversion therapy” and implementing a national strategy to end the HIV epidemic in this country.
We ended the disgraceful practice of banning gay and bisexual men from donating blood. We are doing this work here at home and around the globe, where LGBTQI+ community members are fighting for recognition of their fundamental human rights and seeking to live full lives, free from hate-fueled violence and discrimination.
But for all the progress, we know real challenges persist. Last year, as we celebrated Pride Month on the South Lawn of the White House, I had the honor of meeting survivors of the Club Q and Pulse shootings, which tragically took the lives of LGBTQI+ Americans.
Although my Administration passed the most significant gun law in nearly 30 years, the Congress must do its part and ban assault weapons. At the same time, families across the country face excruciating decisions to relocate to a different State to protect their children from dangerous and hateful anti-LGBTQI+ laws, which target transgender children, threaten families, and criminalize doctors and nurses.
These bills and laws attack our most basic values and freedoms as Americans: the right to be yourself, the right to make your own medical decisions, and the right to raise your own children. Some things should never be put at risk: your life, your safety, and your dignity.
To the entire LGBTQI+ community — and especially transgender children — please know that your President and my entire Administration have your back. We see you for who you are: made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.
That is why I have taken historic action to protect the LGBTQI+ community. We are ensuring that the LGBTQI+ community is protected against discrimination when accessing health care, and the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Justice launched a safety partnership to provide critical training and support to the community, including resources to help report hate crimes and better protect festivals, marches, community centers, businesses, and health care providers serving the community.
The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are also addressing whether book bans may violate Federal civil rights laws when they target LGBTQI+ students or students of color and create hostile classroom environments.
Additionally, we are providing specialized services through the nationwide crisis hotline for LGBTQI+ youth who feel isolated and overwhelmed — anyone who needs help can call 988 and then press 3 to be connected to a professional counselor.
We are committing more resources for mental health programs that help families support and affirm their kids and are starting a new Federal initiative to address LGBTQI+ homelessness. We finalized new regulations requiring States to protect LGBTQI+ kids in foster care.
America is the only Nation in the world founded on an idea: We are all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our lives. We have never fully lived up to that idea, but we have never fully walked away from it either.
This month, we recommit to realizing the promise of America for all Americans, to celebrating courageous LGBTQI+ people, and to taking pride in the example they set for our Nation and the world.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2024 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month.
I call upon the people of the United States to recognize the achievements of the LGBTQI+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
As a reminder, Trump never issued a Pride Month proclamation. In 2019, he did post a single tweet, for which he earned massive blowback from the cult.
That’s a slogan used often to remind us of the origins of LGBTQ+ Pride Month, celebrated each June in the U.S. and many other countries. It’s used especially by those who feel Pride parades and festivals have become too corporate and not as political as they should be. But Pride Month and the attendant events endure, having survived pandemics, hostile politicians, and internal controversies. Here’s a look at why we observe Pride Month in June.
The short answer is Stonewall. But there’s more to Pride history than that.
As most reasonably informed LGBTQ+ people and allies know, a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, a popular gay bar in New York City’s Greenwich Village, early in the morning of June 28, 1969, led the patrons to fight back, with riots in the area of the bar over the next several days. The Stonewall uprising is shrouded in myth and mystery about who was there, who threw the first brick, and so on. But what’s unquestionable is that the community showed it wasn’t going to take harassment and brutality lying down. It had shown that before, but Stonewall was the “Big Bang” that jump-started the movement at the end of a tumultuous decade, as historian Lillian Faderman wrote in Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement, published in 1994.
In 1959, drag queens and hustlers protested police harassment at Cooper’s Donuts in downtown Los Angeles, a popular gay hangout. In 1966, there were demonstrations and riots against similar mistreatment at Compton’s Cafeteria in San Francisco. As patrons of the Black Cat Bar in L.A. rang in 1967, police raided the gay establishment, arresting those dressed in drag or kissing a member of the same sex. Gay Angelenos responded with multiple protests, and the Black Cat demonstrations led to the publication of a newsletter that became The Advocate.
The first annual observance in support of LGBTQ+ rights were the Reminder Day Pickets in Philadelphia. The demonstrations were held each July 4 from 1965 to 1969 at Independence Hall. Pioneering activists including Barbara Gittings and Frank Kameny were involved in the protests. After Stonewall, organizers of the Reminder Day Pickets suggested commemorating that date in the last weekend of June. See Library of Congress footage of a 1968 Reminder Day event below.
The first Pride marches or parades observing the Stonewall anniversary came in 1970 in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Activists were encouraged by the turnout and began planning repeat annual events, and other cities soon took up the cause. Boston’s first one came in 1971, Dallas’s and Philadelphia’s in 1972, Seattle’s in 1974, Washington, D.C.’s in 1975, and on and on. Pride celebrations spread overseas too; London’s first was in 1972, Sydney’s in 1978, Montreal’s in 1979. The international WorldPride was first held in Rome in 2000; Washington, D.C., is hosting it this year.
Now Pride is observed in cities large and small, and not always on the Stonewall anniversary, for reasons of convenience and more. For instance, in Palm Springs, Calif., located in a desert area, June is too scorching for parades, so Pride is held in early November. Los Angeles and West Hollywood usually hold Pride in early to mid-June, and in other cities it happens in July, August, or later. Tokyo holds Pride in April, Rio de Janeiro in November.
A look back on the first gay pride parade in LAyoutu.be
Spreading Pride to a week or a month
Some cities began celebrating a Pride Week in the 1970s, sometimes with official recognition from political leaders. For instance, Seattle Mayor Wes Uhlman declared a Gay Pride Week in 1977. Now mayors, governors, and more are declaring Pride Month.
In 1999, Bill Clinton became the first U.S. president to proclaim June as Pride Month — it was then dubbed Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Clinton was and is a Democrat; when Republican George W. Bush moved into the White House, he declined to recognize the month. When the next Democratic president, Barack Obama, took office in 2009, he began proclaiming LGBT Pride Month annually.
Again, with Donald Trump, a Republican president failed to declare Pride Month, although he sent out a tweet in 2019 calling for “solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.” It amounted to “be grateful we don’t execute you,” as The Advocate’s headline noted.
Happily, with Democrat Joe Biden, Pride Month again has White House recognition. This year’s proclamation, issued Friday, declared June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month. “I call upon the people of the United States to recognize the achievements of the LGBTQI+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high,” he wrote.
The burgeoning of Dyke Marches, Black Pride, and trans events.
As Pride celebrations spread, many women, people of color, and trans people became frustrated that they, like LGBTQ+ activist groups and society at large, were dominated by white cisgender men. So they not only fought to make general Pride celebrations more inclusive but founded their own.
The first Dyke Marches were held in 1993 in New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Events centering queer women were held sporadically in cities around the nation before then, but they didn’t become continual occurrences. After 1993, many other cities began holding Dyke Marches.
Annual Black LGBTQ+ Pride celebrations have been held since 1991, with DC Black Pride being the first. These events are now in U.S. cities from coast to coast and in many other countries as well.
Trans people have often been marginalized even in the LGBTQ+ community, despite the importance of trans activists such as Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera to Stonewall and the beginning of the modern LGBTQ+ movement. Trans people and drag queens have sometimes even been barred from Pride parades. So in the 21st century, trans marches have been organized in many cities, with San Francisco’s, which started in 2004, being most likely the largest and oldest.
Weathering storms
Since the beginning of Pride celebrations in 1970, the queer movement has faced many challenges, from hostile politicians and religious leaders to internal dissension. Pride parades in large cities are now big enough that marchers and onlookers can ignore any anti-LGBTQ+ protesters who show up, and in progressive areas, politicians are eager to participate in Pride parades and festivals, which certainly wasn’t always the case. The AIDS epidemic devastated the community, but Pride went on, and the fight against the disease birthed many fierce activists. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the cancellation of numerous Pride events, but celebrations have come back strong now. And debates have raged about whether corporate sponsorship of Pride is a good or a bad thing and whether the participation of uniformed police is appropriate. These debates will undoubtedly continue to go on, but so will Pride — both for veteran activists and the new generations coming out.
Just in time for Pride, a new tour on Boston’s historic Freedom Trail highlights the history of the city’s LGBTQ+ community.
The Rainbow Revolutionaries Tour promises to reveal Boston’s history on marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as the lives and loves of some of the local community’s famed figures – including one world-famous actress and one Revolutionary War hero.
The Rainbow Revolutionaries Tour is roughly one mile long and takes about 1.5 hours to complete. The tour route is varied, going through parks and streets, and follows the larger 2.5-mile-long Freedom Trail.
The tour begins on the Boston Common next to the Robert Gould Shaw and Massachusetts 54th Regiment Memorial. Shaw was an abolitionist who raised and led the 54th, comprised of Black soldiers, into battle in the Civil War. The 1989 film Glory detailed the exploits of Shaw and the soldiers.
The first stop on the Rainbow Revolutionaries Tour is the historic Massachusetts State House. Completed in January 1798, the building is considered a classic example of Federal architecture and has been designated a National Historic Landmark. Elaine Noble, the nation’s first out LGBTQ+ state legislator, served within its hallowed halls. Sworn into office on New Year’s Day 1975 by then-Gov. Michael Dukakis, Noble served two terms in the state legislature.
The next stop on the tour is the historic Park Street Church atop Beacon Hill. The church was founded in 1809 and the current structure opened its doors in 1810. Park Street Church provided an early platform for 19th-century activists to speak out against slavery. Abolitionist Edward Beecher, brother of early Black activist and author Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom’s Cabin), became the church’s pastor in 1826. Fellow anti-slavery activist and noted author, publisher, and speaker William Lloyd Garrison delivered a speech in the church in 1829.
The tour’s final stop is the Old Corner Bookstore. The building housed the publisher Ticknor and Fields, which published such noted American titles as The Scarlet Letter, Walden, and TheMidnight Ride of Paul Revere.
The Rainbow Revolutionaries Tour runs on Saturdays and Sundays starting at 10:45 a.m., but only for June. Tickets are $17 for adults, $15 for seniors, and $8 for children. You can learn more and purchase tickets at thefreedomtrail.org.
The National Park Service will allow employees to participate in celebratory parades and events in uniform, a departure from earlier memos to staff membersweeks before the start of LGBTQ Pride Month that effectively banned such uniformed employees from marching in public events.
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland clarified the policy for Special Emphasis Programs — which includes programming about the LGBTQ community — in a memo to staff members Friday. She did not directly address Pride Month, which begins Saturday.
“I am directing Bureau leaders or their designated officials to determine how and when bureaus should participate in these externally organized events. This could include marching units in parades, booths at parades, events etc. This would allow employees to participate in uniform representing their respective bureau. This direction takes effect immediately,” Haaland wrote in the memo.
She added, “Bureau leaders or designated officials must apply consistent criteria for determining the appropriate nature of participation.”
The park service and the Interior Department shared copies of the memo in response to a request for comment. NPS added that it “is working on implementation guidance for parks.”
A previous department memo shared with NBC News asked employees to refrain from “participating in or attending any demonstration or public event wherein the wearing of the uniform could be construed as agency support for a particular issue, position, or political party.” While that memo did not directly address Pride Month, a follow-up Q&A document shared with NBC News said external Pride events were included in the policy.
The memo caused confusion in the department, according to park service staffers, because it appeared to be a departure from how the agency has previously enforced certain policies.
Haaland appeared to address the confusion in her memo, writing: “We have an obligation to implement policy fairly and equitably. My hope is that this direction addresses any implementation questions or confusion as we enter a number of Special Emphasis Months.”
NPS affirmed in a social media post last week that “National parks are for everyone” alongside an image of the Stonewall Inn, the site of a historic 1969 uprising in New York City that sparked the modern LGBTQ rights movement. The park service oversees the Stonewall National Monument, across the street from the bar.
The park service said in the caption that it celebrates “the contributions of LGBTQ+ Americans past and present, including our team of employees, partners and volunteers.”
