I started this story before the mass shooting at Pulse, a popular gay bar in Orlando, Fl. This tragedy has impacted me deeply. These are my people. I do not know them personally, but we are bonded by the ways in which we walk through the world. The country responds with vigils, prayers, and moments of silence for the victims who lost their lives. While these are important symbolic actions, they are not enough.
Everyday, LGBT people in the United States face discrimination and are silenced by a discourse that vilifies and shames us. Cloaked in language of God, rhetoric from the religious right fuels the hatred and perpetuates violence while ignorance sustains it. I hear media channels talk about tolerance of LGBT individuals as if we are something so distasteful, the best one can do is tolerate us. It is no longer enough to settle for tolerance. I want to be acknowledged, accepted, and afforded the same rights provided to heterosexual people.
If we are serious about a cultural shift, it is time to be explicit about actions for change. There are many ways one can create change. One important channel is policy. As you read this story, you’ll note different state level policies that discriminate and exclude people based on sexual orientation (laws regarding gender identity are also discussed). If you live in one of these states, it is time to to act. You can work within your state to change policy that will make a true difference for LGBT people. It is time to do more. We need to do more.
With the recent attention called to North Carolina, and now with the mass murder in Orlando, I find myself thinking about how LGBT people continue to carry the weight of discrimination despite some recent political gains. The importance of policy cannot be underestimated. It is through policy that I do not have to worry about losing my job because I am a lesbian. I do not have to worry about my right to visit my wife in the hospital if she is in need. I do not have to worry about being denied housing because of my relationship. Policy makes a statement to the members within a geographic boundary. It says, “We recognize you (or not). We accept you (or not). You matter (or not).” Policy tacitly ascribes value to people and shapes the way that communities act towards those people.
My partner and I are fortunate to live in Massachusetts — the first state to legally recognize marriage equality. In 2006, in front of family and friends, we publicly acknowledged our love and commitment to each other. The legal right to do this was more meaningful then I had anticipated. There is an overwhelming feeling of relief and joy that comes with being seen.
Nearly 10 years ago I decided to conduct a job search. Having recently completed my PhD, it was time to venture away from the small town that I had called home for 15 years. I found a job that looked perfect for my interests and skills, but it would require a move to Maine. When I announced my plans to apply for this job stark reality hit me when my wife said, “We can’t be married there.” Wow!
At the time in 2006, only Massachusetts allowed same sex couples to legally marry. I was faced with a decision — advance my career and lose my legal status as married, or potentially not work in my field so that I could maintain my rights and recognition as a married person. This felt like an easy, and yet, impossible choice. Suddenly I felt the walls close in on me.
In the end, I was able to obtain a job in my field and in my local community. But in my soul searching, I learned this about myself: I cannot hide who I am. I have to live and work in a place in which I can fully be myself. I have to be able to share my life with my wife — loving, funny, supportive, caring Sally — openly and not make choices between the core of my identity and everyday interactions.
Coming out is a continuous process. Even in my supportive wonderful community, in every day moments, I make decisions about what to reveal about myself. I do this mostly with consideration for my safety. If I hold my partner’s hand in public, will someone harass us? If I talk about my wife, will I receive a pejorative comment that I may not be up for handling? If I place a rainbow sticker on my car, will I become a target for vandalism or violence? These questions are ingrained in my thinking and I make split second decisions daily. I know I am also lucky because this is much less of an issue for me living in a community that recognizes LGBT relationships alongside and equal to heterosexual relationships.
For me, living in a place where I am supported and able to be out is of utmost importance. All LGBT people deserve this. But I don’t just mean support at an interpersonal level. I’m sure in almost any community in this country, I could find friends with whom I would be able to be my true self. Rather, I think about support at the state level. Which states have policies that explicitly recognize and support the inclusion of same sex couples? I find myself asking the question, “If I were job searching today, where could I live?”
So I decided to review state laws and make a map that highlights which states I can live in as an out lesbian. This is not an exhaustive list of policies and new policies that seek to limit the rights of LGBT people are being introduced into state legislatures everyday. The data here are gathered from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), “2015 State Equality Index.” The maps reflect laws that are specific to sexual orientation, but to the best of my ability, in the text, I also indicate when states do not offer protection for transgender individuals.
School Policies
The states in gray below are states that have legislation that goes against the core of my being. Alabama, Arizona, Utah, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee have laws that prohibit the inclusion of LGBT topics in the schools. Let me say this more clearly. Teachers in these schools are prohibited from speaking of homosexuality (or gender identity) in the classroom. Even if I don’t teach or work in public schools, the reality that my existence is “one that cannot be named” keeps me invisible. It teaches the community that LGBT people shameful and perverse. If merely speaking about LGBT existence is against policy in these states, I cannot possibly live safely here.
The two states in yellow, South Dakota and Missouri, do not allow school districts to explicitly protect LGBT youth in their anti-bullying policies. Youth who are LGBT or perceived to be LGBT are at greatest risk of being bullied in schools. Not allowing these groups to be explicitly named in anti-bullying leaves them unsupported and unsafe in school.
Marriage
While marriage is now the law of the land (thank you SCOTUS), I rule out living in a state that has not explicitly legislated marriage equality. Prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision 14 states did not allow same sex marriage. None of these states has taken the necessary steps to change state legislation. There is much talk at the federal level by the presumed GOP candidate of creating legislation that would remove this right federally. I will not relocate to a state where my marriage could not be recognized. Therefore, add these states (in gray) to the places that I cannot live.
Employment
Being gainfully employed is important for most people and it is essential to both my wife and me. Equally important for us is the ability to not hide our sexual orientation in the work place as many people have to do for fear of being fired. Sexual orientation (and gender identity) is excluded from federal equal opportunity language. Many states (shown in purple) have state level policies that include public and private employment protection for lesbian, gay, or bisexual people. Two states, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, do not offer protection for people based on gender identity. For the other states, LGBT people can be fired (or not hired) based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in private and/or public employment.
Housing
Similar to employment, there is no federal housing protection offered to LGBT individuals. In other words, someone may be denied rental units or prohibited from purchasing a home based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Some states (shown in purple) have implemented laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. All of these purple states with the exception of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, also prohibit discrimination from housing based on gender identity. Housing is a basic human right and should be a guarantee for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Therefore, I exclude the states in gray from the places I can live.
Parenting
While I am past parenting age, I am listed as a legal guardian for a few different children if anything were to happen to both of the parents. Therefore, living in a state with full parenting rights (recognition of second parentage and protection from discrimination in adoption) is an important criteria. It is true that equal marriage laws should have solved issues related to parenting, however, many states continue to deny second parent recognition for same sex couples. Similarly, some states continue to allow for discrimination in adoption or foster care placement. Denial of parental rights is in essence, a denial of the existence of same sex couples. I cannot risk living in one of these states.
Religious Freedom Acts
Religious Freedom Acts are being implemented in several states. These laws are written differently in different states and could allow for denial of basic civil rights (for example delivery of goods and services, medical care and treatment) based on one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. These laws undermine state non-discrimination protections.
Hate Crimes Legislation
While there is federal protection laws based on sexual orientation, this only applies to federal crimes. Therefore, all states should enact legislation that protects LGBT individuals from the perpetration of non-federal crimes. I want to live in a state where crimes perpetrated against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity would be classified as crimes of hate. While this map reflects hate crimes legislation related to sexual orientation, there are a number of states that do not provide hate crimes protection for transgender people. These states are: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
I Can Live Here
So where does this leave us? If my wife and I want to relocate to a state where we are accepted, a state where at the highest level, lawmakers say, “we recognize you, we recognize your relationship,” we are left with few options. Here is where we can live.
It is unacceptable that in 2016, I can only live in 11 states and the District of Columbia as an out lesbian. Transgender individuals have fewer options as New Hampshire (denies protection for employment and housing and excludes gender identity from hate crime legislation), New York and Maine (neither include gender identity protection in hate crime legislation) would be off the list.
The tragedy in Orlando is a stark reminder to all of us that LGBT violence continues to exist. This violence is perpetuated by a discourse that explicitly demeans and degrades LGBT individuals. It is also perpetuated by state and federal policy that continues to allow discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It is time to act. Contact your elected officials and demand that your state policies be inclusive of all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. In the land of the free and home of the brave, we can and must do better.
Thank you to HRC for compiling state by state policies in the 2015 State Equality Index. As noted, this essay includes policies as of 2015 along with updates as of 2016. Changes may have occurred since publishing this essay. This is not an exhaustive list of policies. There are other policies that exist that are also troubling. For a more comprehensive look at state policies please see the 2015 State Equality Index published by HRC. The essay does not include local policies within these states.
Thank you to Em Chiu, Sally Linowski, Bob Hemmer, and Javier Corrales for providing thoughtful feedback on this article. And also to Em Chiu for her assistance with the graphics.