scholarly journals State and local policies related to sexual orientation in the United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Cramer ◽  
Sarah Hexem ◽  
Archana LaPollo ◽  
Kendra M. Cuffe ◽  
Harrell W. Chesson ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Christy Mallory ◽  
Brad Sears

LGBT people in the United States continue to experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, despite increasing acceptance of LGBT people and legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. This ongoing discrimination can lead to under- and unemployment, resulting in socioeconomic disparities for LGBT people. In addition, empirical research has linked LGBT health disparities, including disparities in health-related risk factors, to experiences of stigma and discrimination. Currently, federal statutes in the United States do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, or public accommodations, leaving regulation in this area primarily to state and local governments. This creates a limited and uneven patchwork of protections from discrimination against LGBT people across the country. Despite public support for LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination laws across the country, in 28 states there are no statewide statutory protections for LGBT people in employment, housing, or public accommodations. To date, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive non-discrimination statutes that expressly prohibit discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity in all three of these areas. One additional state has statutes that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, but not gender identity discrimination, in these areas. One other state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, but not in public accommodations. In states without statutes that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there are other policies that afford LGBT people at least some limited protections from discrimination. In some of these states, state executive branch officials have expanded non-discrimination protections for LGBT people under their executive or agency powers. For example, in three states, state government agencies have expanded broad protections from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination through administrative regulations. And, in 12 states without statutes prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, governors have issued executive orders that protect state government employees (and sometimes employees of state government contractors) from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, local government ordinances provide another source of protection from discrimination; however, these laws are generally unenforceable in court and provide much more limited remedies than statewide non-discrimination statutes. In recent years, lawmakers have increasingly attempted to limit the reach of state and local non-discrimination laws, which can leave LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination. For example, some states have passed laws allowing religiously motivated discrimination and others have passed laws prohibiting local governments from enacting their own non-discrimination ordinances that are broader than state non-discrimination laws. While most of these bills have not passed, the recent increase in the introduction of these measures suggests that state legislatures will continue to consider rolling back non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in the coming years. Continued efforts are required at both the state and federal levels to ensure that LGBT people are fully protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity throughout the United States, including federal legislation and statewide bills in over half the states.


Author(s):  
Haley D. Wikoff ◽  
Matthew J. Beck ◽  
Susannah M. Wood

LGBTQ+ youth experience increased levels of bullying, harassment, and discrimination in schools. Many states in the United States have state and local policies that are designed to protect both the sexual orientation and gender identity of students, however there are still a handful of states without these protections in place. School counselors are in a unique position to advocate for safe and inclusive environments for LGBQ+ youth.


Commonwealth ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennie Sweet-Cushman ◽  
Ashley Harden

For many families across Pennsylvania, child care is an ever-present concern. Since the 1970s, when Richard Nixon vetoed a national childcare program, child care has received little time in the policy spotlight. Instead, funding for child care in the United States now comes from a mixture of federal, state, and local programs that do not help all families. This article explores childcare options available to families in the state of Pennsylvania and highlights gaps in the current system. Specifically, we examine the state of child care available to families in the Commonwealth in terms of quality, accessibility, flexibility, and affordability. We also incorporate survey data from a nonrepresentative sample of registered Pennsylvania voters conducted by the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics. As these results support the need for improvements in the current childcare system, we discuss recommendations for the future.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-77
Author(s):  
Dale L. Flesher ◽  
Craig Foltin ◽  
Gary John Previts ◽  
Mary S. Stone

ABSTRACT Both the business media and the popular press have emphasized the underfunding problems associated with pension funds that are set aside for state and local government workers, a group that also includes teachers and professors at state-affiliated colleges and universities. The realization that pension funds are typically underfunded stems from the fact that the accounting standards associated with state and local government employee pension funds have led to greater transparency since 2011. This paper examines, explains, and interprets the historical development over the last 70 years of accounting standards for state and local government pension funds in the United States. Changing accounting standards, along with economic and social change, have led to consequences such as employers transforming their pension programs to avoid substantial costs and significant liabilities, for example by changing from defined benefit to defined contribution plans.


All known societies exclude and stigmatize one or more minority groups. Frequently these exclusions are underwritten with a rhetoric of disgust: people of a certain group, it is alleged, are filthy, hyper-animal, or not fit to share such facilities as drinking water, food, and public swimming pools with the ‘clean’ and ‘fully human’ majority. But exclusions vary in their scope and also in the specific disgust-ideologies underlying them. In this volume, interdisciplinary scholars from the United States and India present a detailed comparative study of the varieties of prejudice and stigma that pervade contemporary social and political life: prejudice along the axes of caste, race, gender, age, sexual orientation, transgender, disability, religion, and economic class. In examining these forms of stigma and their intersections, the authors present theoretically pluralistic and empirically sensitive accounts that both explain group-based stigma and suggest ways forward. These forward-looking remedies, including group resistance to subordination as well as institutional and legal change, point the way towards a public culture that is informed by our diverse histories of discrimination and therefore equipped to eliminate stigma in all of its multifaceted forms.


2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Andrew Poyar ◽  
Nancy Beller-Simms

Abstract State and local governments in the United States manage a wide array of natural and human resources that are particularly sensitive to climate variability and change. Recent revelations of the extent of the current and potential climate impact in this realm such as with the quality of water, the structure of the coasts, and the potential and witnessed impact on the built infrastructure give these political authorities impetus to minimize their vulnerability and plan for the future. In fact, a growing number of subnational government bodies in the United States have initiated climate adaptation planning efforts; these initiatives emphasize an array of climate impacts, but at different scales, scopes, and levels of sophistication. Meanwhile, the current body of climate adaptation literature has not taken a comprehensive look at these plans nor have they questioned what prompts local adaptation planning, at what scope and scale action is being taken, or what prioritizes certain policy responses over others. This paper presents a case-based analysis of seven urban climate adaptation planning initiatives, drawing from a review of publicly available planning documents and interviews with stakeholders directly involved in the planning process to provide a preliminary understanding of these issues. The paper also offers insight into the state of implementation of adaptation strategies, highlighting the role of low upfront costs and cobenefits with issues already on the local agenda in prompting anticipatory adaptation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document