QUEER QUOTE: SD Gov Vetoes Anti-Trans Students Bill

Wow! This is a big surprise. The Republican Governor of South Dakota has vetoed a bill that explicitly targeted the transgender community for discrimination. House bill 1008 would have stated that students in South Dakota must use bathrooms and changing facilities that correspond to their "biological gender" and not their gender identity.

Governor Dennis Daugaard's veto message is today's queer quote:

March 1, 2016

The Honorable Dean Wink

Speaker of the House of Representatives

500 East Capitol Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,

I respectfully return to you House Bill 1008, with my VETO.

House Bill 1008 does not address any pressing issue concerning the school districts of South Dakota.  As policymakers in South Dakota, we often recite that the best government is the government closest to the people.  Local school districts can, and have, made necessary restroom and locker room accommodations that serve the best interests of all students, regardless of biological sex or gender identity. 

This bill seeks to impose statewide standards on “every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school.”  It removes the ability of local school districts to determine the most appropriate accommodations for their individual students and replaces that flexibility with a state mandate.

If and when these rare situations arise, I believe local school officials are best positioned to address them.  Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this state.

Preserving local control is particularly important because this bill would place every school district in the difficult position of following state law while knowing it openly invites federal litigation.  Although there have been promises by an outside entity to provide legal defense to a school district, this provision is not memorialized in the bill.  Nor would such defense eliminate the need for school or state legal counsel, nor avoid expenses relating to expert witnesses, depositions and travel, or other defense costs.  Nor does the commitment extend to coverage over settlement or damage expenses.  This law will create a certain liability for school districts and the state in an area where no such liability exists today.

For these reasons, I oppose this bill and ask that you sustain my veto.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Daugaard

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

There Are Only 5 States Whose Marriage Equality Bans Are Not (Currently) Being Challenged In Court

This is an interesting factoid. There are currently only 5 states where bans on same-sex marriage are NOT currently being challenged in court (North dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Georgia, and Montana). There are 17 states that have marriage equality right now. There are 30 states with more than 65 lawsuits (44 of which are federal cases) pending against their bans on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, reports the Washington Post:

Heterosexual-only marriage is safe in just five states, for now at least.   

Gay marriage is now legal in 17 states and bans are being challenged in 30, according to the latest count from Lambda Legal, a pro-gay marriage organization. (Hawaii and Illinois allow gay marriage, but legal technicalities  to aspects of their laws are still being ironed out in the courts.) The five states with bans on gay marriage that stand unchallenged are: Alaska, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota  and South Dakota.  

The five unchallenged state gay marriage bans may not stand for long. Already, a South Dakota couple has plans to challenge their state ban. And  the Supreme Court could soon weigh in.

It's unlikely the Supreme Court will really weigh in on the marriage equality question before the end of the 2014-15 term, and that's only if one of the appellate cases (the first of which was heard on Thursday in Denver before the 10th U.S. Circuit) rockets to their docket before the end of this year, which certainly is possible.

I think the 5 states that currently do not have marriage equality lawsuits says more about the lack of
organized LGBT infrastructure in those states than whether there are people who would benefit if those bans were also removed.

Now There Are 3!: Sen. Johnson (D-SD) Supports Marriage Equality

U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) announced he will not seek re-election in 2014.

Tim Johnson, just one of four Democratic United states Senators who had not publicly stated his support for marriage equality, became the 54th member of that august body to join the right side of history on Monday by issuing the following statement:

"After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation.  This position doesn't require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom."  

Only senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), all of whom represent red states and two of whom are up for re-election in 2014, have not (yet) endorsed marriage equality. It should be noted that Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina represents a red state and is up for re-election in 2014 and she announced support for marriage equality more than a week ago.

That brings the total number of marriage equality supporters  in the Senate to 54. Any chance we can get to a "filibuster-proof" majority by the end of the year? Now that would be something. You can re-read my analysis here of which Senate Republicans I think will be next to support marriage equality.

REPORT: LGBT Population Measured in Every State

The William Institute's Gary Gates is the author of a new report that analyzes Gallup data to produce a geographical distribution of the LGBT population throughout the United States. Previously, he had co-authored a report that estimated that the LGBT population of the United States is 3.4% of adult Americans (above 18 years old).

This new report illustrates that the distribution of the LGBT population is not uniform (as one would expect), with a minimum of 1.7% in  North Dakota and maximum of 10% in District of Columbia.

The Top 10 states with the highest percentages of respondents to the question "Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender?" are depicted below.

The report attempts to posit a reason for the relatively small variation in the LGBT percentage among the states:

In general, states where residents express more liberal views are more accepting of LGBT individuals, while socially conservative areas are less accepting. Of the 10 states and D.C. where at least 4% of respondents identified as LGBT, seven are among the most liberal states in the country. Conversely, six of 10 states with the lowest percentage of LGBT-identified adults are among the top 10 conservative states in the country.

The states with proportionally larger LGBT populations generally have supportive LGBT legal climates. With the exception of South Dakota, all of the states that have LGBT populations of at least 4% have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and allow same-sex couples to marry, enter into a civil union, or register as domestic partners. Of the 10 states with the lowest percentage of LGBT adults, only Iowa has such laws.

Higher proportions of LGBT individuals in a state could also suggest that LGBT individuals move there in higher proportions than the general population does. While highly concentrated (and mostly male) LGBT neighborhoods exist in many cities and are certainly in part a result of this type of migration, little is known about the broader migration patterns of the LGBT community. Given prior Gallup findings showing that the LGBT population is disproportionately young, female, and nonwhite -- all of which are groups with economic disadvantages that could limit their abilities to move -- it seems unlikely that migration is the primary reason for variation in LGBT identification across states.

[...]

From a broad perspective, the variation in the percentage of adults across U.S. states who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is relatively small. At the same time, the variation does provide interesting information about LGBT identification and its possible relationship to the ideological and legal climate in different states. All states are within a couple of percentage points of the overall LGBT national average of 3.5%. The LGBT adult population estimate is above 5% only in the District of Columbia and Hawaii, and below 2% only in North Dakota. 

States with high LGBT percentages tend to be more liberal and have more supportive LGBT legal climates, while those at the lower end of the LGBT spectrum are generally the most conservative. This suggests that one explanation for the variation across states is the relationship between the willingness to disclose LGBT identity and the environment of one's state of residence. It is also possible that LGBT adults make conscious choices to reside in certain states rather than others, but this possibility is difficult to assess and seems less likely.

I think it is very important to get good information about size and diversity of the LGBT population. As people who believe in LGBT equality, we can fight discrimination and rank homophobia with factual data and appeals to fairness and reason.

AK and SD Only States Without Openly LGBT Elected

There are only two states in the Union which do not have a single openly LGBT elected official at any level: South Dakota and Alaska. Mississippi used to be on the list until last week when Mayor Greg Davis of Southhaven, MS admitted that he was gay after auditors found he had tried to get reimbursed for expenses at a an adult store while on a business trip to Canada!

According to Denis Dison at the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund:

That doesn’t mean these states aren’t served by LGBT elected officials, just that none have self-identified publicly either in speeches or in the media.  But one group that supports out elected officials says there’s a reason this matters.

“It’s important that people know there are LGBT people serving in public office, especially in their own communities.  That doesn’t mean that LGBT issues are front and center in their work.  In some cases just being open and honest about that part of our lives has great potential to deepen understanding of our community, and that makes a huge difference,” said Tiffany Muller, Vice President for Programs at the Victory Institute.

The Victory Institute maintains the most up-to-date database of out LGBT officials available, and in recent years elected officials in states like Kansas, South Carolina, West Virginia and North Dakota have been added.  The group has a goal in 2012 of having identified at least one out elected official in every state in the U.S.  ”That will mark a really significant milestone for LGBT Americans, and it will be a symbol of how far we’ve come as a country,” Muller said.

Who wants to bet that there are closeted politicians serving in elected office in South Dakota and Alaska right now (and maybe getting a  little nervous)?

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God