scholarly journals Is Where Same-Sex Couples Live a Valid Measure for Where Single Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People Live in Population Health Research? Results from a National Probability Phone Survey, 2017, United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-114
Author(s):  
Joseph G. L. Lee ◽  
Marcella H. Boynton ◽  
Bonnie E. Shook-Sa ◽  
Thomas Wimark
Keyword(s):  
Population Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Health Inequities ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Cohabitation Status ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Lgbt Individuals

Emerging evidence using the concentration of same-sex couples from the U.S. Census suggests lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), and transgender (LGBT; i.e., sexual and gender minority [SGM]) people living as a same-sex couple are concentrated in less healthful neighborhoods. However, it is unclear if findings would be different if based on where LGBT individuals live. Thus, we sought to assess differences in neighborhood, county, and state characteristics between same-sex couples and LGBT individuals to inform population health research and policy interventions on LGBT health inequities. In 2017, we conducted a cross-sectional national, probability survey of LGBT adults in the U.S. and geocoded addresses (N = 407). We linked locations with census tract, county, and state characteristics selected based on health inequities theories. In 2019, we used weighted analysis to calculate descriptive statistics and conducted planned contrasts of location characteristics by both cohabitation status and gender. Many location characteristics were similar by cohabitation status and gender. However, the tract proportion of Black residents and county crime rate were lower for cohabitating than non-cohabitating men. State smoke-free air score was weaker for cohabitating than non-cohabitating women. The use of same-sex couples to determine the geographical clustering of LGBT lives in the U.S. may give a reasonable indication of overall spatial characteristics but can underestimate some important determinants of health. Care should be taken using same-sex couples as a proxy for LGBT concentration when racial segregation is a potential confounder.

State Obligations in Relation to Gender Identity and Rights of Same-Sex Couples

2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 277-462
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Name Change ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
State Obligations ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
And Gender

277Human rights — Gender identity — Rights of same-sex couples — State obligations concerning recognition of gender identity and rights of same-sex couples — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Right to equality and non-discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons — Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether sexual orientation and gender identity protected categories under Article 1(1) — Right to gender identity — Right to a name — Whether States under obligation to facilitate name change based on gender identity — Whether failure to establish administrative procedures for name change violating American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether name change procedure under Article 54 of Civil Code of Costa Rica complying with American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Right to equality and non-discrimination — Right to protection of private and family life — Right to family — Whether States obliged to recognize patrimonial rights arising from a same-sex relationship — Whether States required to establish legal institution to regulate same-sex relationshipsInternational tribunals — Jurisdiction — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Advisory jurisdiction — Whether advisory jurisdiction restricted by related petitions before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights — Admissibility — Whether request meeting formal and substantive requirements — Whether Court having jurisdiction

scholarly journals Cross-Temporal and Cross-National Poverty and Mortality Rates among Developed Countries

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Fritzell ◽  
Olli Kangas ◽  
Jennie Bacchus Hertzman ◽  
Jenni Blomgren ◽  
Heikki Hiilamo
Keyword(s):  
Population Health ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Mortality Data ◽  
Social Risk ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Relative Poverty ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Relationship

A prime objective of welfare state activities is to take action to enhance population health and to decrease mortality risks. For several centuries, poverty has been seen as a key social risk factor in these respects. Consequently, the fight against poverty has historically been at the forefront of public health and social policy. The relationship between relative poverty rates and population health indicators is less self-evident, notwithstanding the obvious similarity to the debated topic of the relationship between population health and income inequality. In this study we undertake a comparative analysis of the relationship between relative poverty and mortality across 26 countries over time, with pooled cross-sectional time series analysis. We utilize data from the Luxembourg Income Study to construct age-specific poverty rates across countries and time covering the period from around 1980 to 2005, merged with data on age- and gender-specific mortality data from the Human Mortality Database. Our results suggest not only an impact of relative poverty but also clear differences by welfare regime that partly goes beyond the well-known differences in poverty rates between welfare regimes.

“It’s Going to Be Okay”

2018 ◽  
pp. 117-138
Author(s):  
Mary Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Family Formation ◽  
American Family ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Gender Identities ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
White Middle Class ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
And Gender

Acknowledging that the youth of Spectrum tend to disclose their sexual and gender identities to parents at a relatively young age, this chapter explores the role of family in the formation of these youths’ sexualities and genders. It was often the case with Spectrum youth that, rather than rejection, they encountered loving support about their sexuality from their parents. The youth of Spectrum are of a generation of kids who are the first to grow up in a society in which same-sex couples and genderqueer parents rearing children have become significantly socially acceptable. The chapter argues that young people are sharing their queer sexual and gender identities with their parents at a younger age because of gender non-conformity that leads parents to make assumptions about their child’s sexuality because they are more frequently exposed to LGBTQ family members and loved ones and because these particular parents do not conform to the white, middle-class, heteropatriarchal regime of the Standard North American Family. Queer family formation has broad implications not just for same-sex couples but for the way U.S. society understands and recognizes family in general.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Frank ◽  
Bethany Moreton ◽  
Heather R. White
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sunday Morning ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The U.S

The lines seem so clearly drawn: A white evangelical minister stands in front of his California congregation on a Sunday morning. In one hand he holds a Bible. In the other is the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples throughout the country. “It’s time to choose,” he thunders to thousands of believers in the stadium-style worship center. “Will we follow the Word of God or the tyrannical dictates of government?” His declaration “This is who I stand with” is met with applause from the faithful as he dramatically flings the Court’s decision to the ground and tramples on it, waving the Bible in his upraised hand....

scholarly journals Queering kinship, overcoming heteronorms

Human Affairs ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-37
Author(s):  
Diego Lasio ◽  
João Manuel De Oliveira ◽  
Francesco Serri
Keyword(s):  
European Countries ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Lesbian And Gay ◽  
Feminist Perspectives ◽  
Lgbt Individuals

AbstractAlthough same-sex couples and their offspring have been legitimised in many European countries, heteronormativity is still embedded in institutions and practices, thereby continuing to affect the daily lives of LGBT individuals. Italy represents a clear example of the hegemonic power of heteronormativity because of the fierce opposition to recognising lesbian and gay parenthood among many parts of society. This paper focuses on the peculiarities of the Italian scenario with the aim of highlighting how heteronormativity works in contemporary neoliberal contexts. By drawing on queer and feminist perspectives, the article also analyses how LGBT equal rights demands can contribute, to some extent, to reinforcing heteronormativity. Implications concerning strategies for challenging the regime of normality and queering kinship are discussed.

Conflicts Within the Anglican Communion

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Gay Marriage ◽  
First Century ◽  
Sex And Gender ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
The West ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Church

The churches of the Anglican Communion discussed issues of sex and gender throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. Arguments about gender focused on the ordination of women to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate. Debates about sexuality covered polygamy, divorce and remarriage, and homosexuality. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, these debates became intensely focused on homosexuality and were particularly fierce as liberals and conservatives responded to openly gay bishops and the blessing and marriage of same-sex couples. By the second decade of the twenty-first century, the sex and gender debates had become less acrimonious, the Anglican Communion had not split on these issues as some feared, but the ‘disconnect’ between society and the Church, at least in the West, on issues such as the Church of England’s prevarication on female bishops and opposition to gay marriage, had decreased the Church’s credibility for many.

scholarly journals Prejudice and discrimination in the everyday life of same-sex couples raising children

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mário Augusto TOMBOLATO ◽  
Ana Cláudia Bortolozzi MAIA ◽  
Anna Paula UZIEL ◽  
Manoel Antônio dos SANTOS
Keyword(s):  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Raising Children ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Prejudice And Discrimination ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Parenthood Status

Abstract The present study investigated the experiences of prejudice and discrimination in the everyday lives of five same-sex couples raising children. Data were collected using a questionnaire and an interview and were analyzed by thematic analysis. Participants attributed meanings to their experiences of being homoparental families: they assumed their social role as they managed to develop their own conjugality and parental projects in the struggle within a social context permeated by the hegemony of heteronormative values. The participants experienced prejudice related to their lifestyle and attained parenthood status, challenging social norms and gender stereotypes. However, it was also found that attitudes of willingness and perseverance in their fight for their rights proved to be protective measures against prejudice and social intolerance. A limited number of studies have examined the prejudice and discrimination towards same-sex families in Brazil; therefore, there is a need for greater visibility and further discussion about this phenomenon.

scholarly journals The Moonscape of Tax Equality: Windsor and Beyond

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony C. Infanti
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Human Relationships ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Northwestern University ◽  
Privileged Status ◽  
Tax Laws ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
Formal Equality ◽  
The U.S

108 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy 110 (2013)This essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The essay is important because, while other federal laws will apply to some same-sex couples some of the time, the federal tax laws are a concern for all same-sex couples all of the time. The essay is timely because it addresses the recently issued IRS guidance regarding the tax treatment of same-sex couples. In this essay, I first describe the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, I turn to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply -- even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than fostering the recognition of a broader array of human relationships.

The Intersection of LGBT Rights and Religious Beliefs in the United States

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily R. Gill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lgbt Individuals

Tension has long existed in the United State between the equality claims of LGBT individuals, on the one hand, and free exercise claims by those who hold that compelling equal treatment violates their convictions, on the other. This tension increased, however, after the United States Supreme Court extended marriage equality to same-sex couples nationwide. Equality advocates hold that antidiscrimination laws simply allow LGBT individuals to enjoy the same rights as others. Many religious advocates, however, believe that they are being prohibited from living out the implications of their conscientious beliefs. Neutrality between these conflicting claims cannot be achieved, as policies that appear neutral to one group appear non-neutral to the other. Private voluntary organizations are one site of conflict. Although private organizations should not typically be forced to reflect the values of the larger society, not all organizations are similarly situated within it. Groups such as the Boy Scouts should be able to exclude at will. Public authority does not itself always support the values of free and equal citizenship, and organizations may evolve over time as the Scouts itself has done. Organizations that exist within larger entities, however, fall into a different category. The Supreme Court was correct to uphold Hastings Law School in forcing the Christian Legal Society as a registered student organization to admit all comers. These groups also represent the values of a public entity and can continue to operate as independent entities if they so choose. The provision of services in connection with same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies has been another site of conflict. In Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop (2015), the Supreme Court found narrowly that bakery owner Phillips could refuse to create cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, as the state of Colorado had displayed animus toward Phillips’s religious beliefs. Commercial establishments, however, are public accommodations and generally should not be allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of their identities. Discrimination against the activity or conduct of formal commitment is also discrimination against the identity or status of a same-sex couple. These kinds of cases do not admit of neutral solutions. Some suggest that those with religious reservations could advertise that they do not serve same-sex couples, but this is reminiscent of Jim Crow in the post–Civil War South. Jurisdictional pluralists suggest that the government designate a sphere of noninterference as a jurisdictional boundary that it will not cross. Thus individuals and associations with religious commitments would be free to pursue these interests with minimal interference. However, a prior authoritative structure must exist to define the nature and scope of this jurisdiction, just as the Constitution defines the relationships between the national government and the states. Applications for religious exemptions should not be treated more generously when they conflict with LGBT equality concerns than with equality claims based on race or gender. Although religious individuals and groups should be able to exercise their religious convictions within their areas of competence, in a liberal society and state they cannot define the limits of these areas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document