Talk:LGBTQ rights in the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about LGBTQ rights in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Finkelstein?

I think this reference is inappropriate. I don't see what is so special about it that it deserves entry into the article. It seems to have a political motive, of trying to make gay Republicans appear to be hypocrites. Though that happens to coincide with my own views, political attacks have no place in an encyclopedia.

How about we mention some positive figures in the American gay rights movement, like Ellen DeGeneres, rather than focusing on gay "bad guys"? -Kasreyn 09:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger with LGBT movements in the United States

Ntennis has proposed merging this article with LGBT movements in the United States.

What would the merged article be called?Wuzzy 10:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. The two articles are distinctly different: the LGBT movements article focuses on specific movements and organizations in the U.S., whereas the Gay Rights article addresses a more general history of the gay rights movement in general. Stellanor 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. -wond3rlust

They should not be merged. Legal issues and social issues are different and should be left alone. I also want to applaud Wikipedia for their continued support of the LGBT sections here! -TJ (2/10/07)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gay Activist June 1971.jpg

Image:Gay Activist June 1971.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mattachine Review May-June 1955.jpg

Image:Mattachine Review May-June 1955.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ONE magazine cover.jpg

Image:ONE magazine cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

How exactly does the section on 'Popular Culture' fit with the article's focus of LGBT rights in the US? Without some justification, I intend to remove that section. 144.15.115.165 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

california remove same-sex marriage ban

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Gay couple John Lewis, left, and Stuart Gaffney celebrate outside the California Supreme Court on Thursday. In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

should I mention?--Dark paladin x (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

yes ⁽Дҭї₎ 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference #19 is dead.

In fact, a Google News search covering the full temporal extent of the archive fails to detect a Detroit Free Press article with that title. Did it ever exist, or are editorials from that paper not archived? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png may be deleted

I have tagged File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Transgender Identification documents

Something should be mentioned in this article about the legalities of changing gender markers on various forms of identification. At the very least there should be a link to the Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States article, which i have gone ahead and put in the "see also" section. I feel as though it should have a more prominent place in the article though. Genderhack (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Schools Asked by Attorney General to Remove LGBT Protections

This should be addressed in wiki-article:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/03/virginia-schools-asked-by-attorney-general-to-remove-lgbt-protections/
Native94080 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church - not an 'Organization'

The Westboro Baptist Church cannot be considered an 'Organisation' as it a church comprised almost exclusively of first and second generation descendants of it's Pastor and Founder - Fred Phelps. This church may actually qualify as a cult or a hate group, but cannot in my opinion be dignified by being referred to as an Organization. 117.201.40.206 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on that point. Maybe it should be worded a little differently, but I think they have been vocal enough on the issue to merit a mention somehow. Actually, that whole Opposition section could use some expansion. Ex.: What have these groups done to stymie LGBT rights? or individuals?- Ruodyssey (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand - why does mainly comprising descendants of Phelps disqualify it from being an organisation? The OED gives the definition "An organized body of people with a particular purpose" for the word, which agrees with my own understanding of its meaning. What does the blood relationship of the members have to do with it? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with unidentified IP user over various issues

Since I am supposed to explain my views, this is more or less my verdict. I will basically go over the history, as (personally) that is how I tend to view disputes, and it also gives it more organization.

I am not a usual editor of this page. I have added in about two of this whole pages paragraphs mainly about poll data. However, on June 27th, I came across a rather funny edit. This was the edit I saw: [[1]] If you don't care for opening new tabs/windows or have a bad internet connection, this paragraph was added.

Opposition to gay rights is generally founded on the principle of free choice; that is that a person holds 'sovereign' responsibility for their actions, rather than that a person's manifest behaviour is a cause-effect phenomenon. Ergo 'homosexuality' is a contingency of choices apropos to the available options, rather than an immutable characteristic such as ethnicity or gender (which are both provable and predictable, unlike sexuality); and should hold legal status as is so appropriate.

Now, from my point of view, that is wrong on many levels.

1) The paragraph, as I stated, was difficult to read, largely because of the language used and because it relied much on implications that the reader is supposed to get. For example, the last sentence ends with "...and should hold legal status as is so appropriate". But what is "appropriate", from this person's point of view is not stated. I am pretty sure I know what this IP user believes is "appropriate" due to my experience in him talking at me (still using odd language nonetheless, with ALL CAPS QUITE EXCESSIVELY, which I personally find rather tiresome to read as it is like being yelled at). I think most users, once familiar with the history here, would pretty much know too. But would a reader necessarily, especially if they are not from the US?

2) It assigns a philosophy to the opposition that might not be shared by the whole opposition.

3) As I mentioned earlier, it dodges the nature of the debate. The nature of the debate is the struggle over whether being LGBT is moral/amoral and whether societal stigma and oppression (according to some) of those who are LGBT is moral/amoral. For many people on the supporting side for LGBT, there is nothing at all wrong, and perhaps a level of right, with loving the way they do and being the way they are; and conversely, repression by society is specifically amoral. Conversely, those who oppose LGBT rights claim that not only is being LGBT amoral, it is also a thing that society must actively try to suppress, as it is a "sin". When this IP user refers to "free choice" what he means to say is "accountability for one's actions" (though, being the person he is, he prefers the former phrase), and that, supposedly, implicitly it is one's choice to be LGBT (a thing not supported by mainstream science, which I will get to later) and furthermore, they should be restricted from acting in such a way as it is (according to the user) wrong. However, the nature of the debate is not whether people are accountable for their actions (this is a thing both sides agree upon). What both sides don't agree upon is whether the expression of the LGBT being (or the manifestation of LGBT-ness) is moral. That is the debate, not over some "free choice".

4) It is more or less an opinion. As such, according to normal wikipedia policy, it should be put in a quote box (or at least in quotes!) with a source for the opinion cited (although I am aware that many users, including myself are lax on this particular issue and get around to citing much after the edit).

5) Whether sexuality is or is not a matter of choice is part of the debate. Right-wingers insist that it is a matter of choice. Left-wingers, citing vast scientific study, say that it is NOT someone's choice to be LGBT. The latter viewpoint, although not neutral (per se), is the only viewpoint which has overwhelming scientific backing. We can put the right-wing viewpoint in quotes. However, what would we cite to state it as a fact (as the user wants to)? Glenn Beck. Quite frankly, as most people here would hopefully agree, politicians/commentators/comedians are NOT reliable, scientific sources.

Now, the user insists that we not merely cite opponents. If we want to put in quotes for their viewpoints, we can do so, but in quotes, with citation, and not stated like facts !

Other comments:

1) The user frequently uses wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. Quite clearly, this is unacceptable as a source, and must be reverted, as I have done quite a number of times.

2) We already have links to the debate over homosexuality. This page is for LGBT rights in the US, from a legal viewpoint. It is not about the morality of homosexuality.

3) The user seems to think I am censoring him because I am reverting edits that violate citation rules and other things I have mentioned above (or will mention below). This is not censorship, it is maintaining wikipedia's value. If the user wants to not be censored, I suggest he starts his own website. He is free to do so.

4) Can I note that the user himself seems to imply he thinks homosexuality is immoral? I am clearly not the only one who isn't neutral here. In reality, in wikipedia, its pretty rare that even a majority of editors of political issues are "neutral" (and I put this in quotes for a reason, because what is neutral is highly objective).

5) There is no better word for scientifically, because it is, exactly scientifically. 'Experimentally' does not work, as it does not mean the same thing and furthermore, people tend not to look at things "experimentally" in the English language.

I am sure I will be adding on to this later, but I am done for now. --Yalens (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary table?

Perhaps this article could have a summary table? Here is an example of a summary table from the article LGBT rights in Sweden. Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New York

New York has just legalised same-sex marriage. Could anyone edit image with the states highlighted? Malluma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Banning homosexuals from what?

A portion of the current text of this article reads:

"On May 22, 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which among other things banned homosexuals ..."

This makes no sense - what exactly does the 1952 Act ban homosexuals from? Entering the US? Emigrating to the US? Becoming US citizens? Could someone who knows the answer make the necessary correction to the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.38.71 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't Massachusetts on the list of states that allow same sex marriage?

Massachusetts has had same sex marriage legal for years, why is it not included in the count of the "Nine states plus Washington, D.C." that currently allow same sex marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.150.199 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Clinton Record on LGBT Rights

I made a fairly substantial edit to that segment of the page. The original version mentions DOMA and DADT but skimps over the context of DADT and neglects to mention Clinton's positive achievements for gay rights. I added information referring to those achievements -- such as Clinton's executive order banning discrimination on the basic of sexual orientation in civilian gov jobs; Clinton's successful lobbying for a doubling of the federal HIV/AIDS budget; and his being the first President to appoint openly gay people to his Administration. I contextualized DADT as a compromise necessitated by the political failure of Clinton's plan to allow gays to openly served in the military. (I left the part on DOMA unchanged.) I dropped the characterization of Clinton's record on gay rights as "mixed", since it could be argued it was positive (by groups like Human Rights Campaign) or negative (by pundits like Andrew Sullivan); instead, I opted to characterize Clinton's legacy as "controversial." I also corrected one blatant factual error (Clinton came out for gay marriage in 2009, not 2011). I am new at editing and won't get in a "war"; I have made my contribution and will leave it at that. As I am a noob, editors are invited to correct any stylistic (or substantive) errors in my edit. Steeletrap (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More Bisexual rights info needed

I see bisexual itself is only mentioned here twice, despite there being all sorts of articles under Category:Bisexuality. (It gets better treatment in LGBT - or "BLGT" as some of us like to call it :-) This simple google search showed a lot of WP:RS info on bisexual rights. Given that there doubtless are more Bs than LGTs put together, it seems that any differences in their definitions of rights should be addressed. Starting with the fact that lack of social support means they often must be more in the closet than LGTs and that affects their claiming rights; there is something called Biphobia and Category:Bisexual rights activists; the activities of Bisexual community members; legal issues they may be more interested in related to Mixed-orientation marriage and to Polyandry and Polygamy. It's one of many things I'd like to work on more, but so many insensitive articles related to people trapped in open air concentration camps and bombed on a regular basis to work on... ;-( CarolMooreDC🗽 20:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Equality Act of 1974

May 14, 1974 - the first federal gay rights bill is introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974 but fails to pass. The Equality Act of 1974, would have amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by adding "sexual orientation", to the list of protected from discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.163.59 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Funding of AIDS research as a "rights" issue

Is the degree to which funding for AIDS research was or was not funded (under any particular administration) relevant to the topic of the article? I submit not. Adding such material suggests there is a "right" to have funding for research for a disease. But then, what is the "right" as to how much funding? The two paragraphs tagged as not relevant in the Ronald Reagan section should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Many LGBT activists such as Larry Kramer have stated that how much you fund AIDS research is an LGBT rights issue, as cited in the article, and so you have LGBT defenders of Reagan saying that the over 1000% increase was a clear sign of progress. And LGBT critics of Reagan say that it should have been higher. All of the citations currently in the section are to valid RS websites (I think). Quite frankly, the argument from the LGBT critics makes no damn sense to me at all (if Obama increases funding for breast cancer by only x% instead of x2%, does that make him 'sexist' against women?), but it's notable, therefore it's included (let's be honest here, since when are political columnists either pro- or anti-gay expected to use elementary fact-checking? But we report in Wikipedia, we don't decide).

At any rate, it also pains me that we have the non-fact based opinion of LGBT rights people that Reagan thought gay people deserved to die from AIDS versus the objective recorded fact that Reagan stated that he viewed fighting AIDS as a massive crusade that he wanted to do akin to Nixon's war against cancer. That's a valid gripe about the article. But opinions, if notable, should be included in articles. That's the convention. 96.226.212.238 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. If we get into whether governor X provided this amount or president Y provided that amount of funding as a LGBT rights issue, we will only provide a platform for soapboxing and WP:RGW. Funding for AIDS research in and of itself -- and as a possible "rights" issue -- is a topic for another article, or section of an article. This article currently suffers from a lack of good editing. For example, the SCOTUS non-decision re California Prop 8 was completely mis-done. (I've corrected it, albiet without RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, look, as someone that's a pansexual transgender person myself, it mystify me why Gay Inc et al, the political LGBT groups, have decided that more AIDS funding makes you pro-gay and less AIDS funding makes you anti-gay. You're right that it doesn't make sense. But that's the objective reality as declared by reliable sources.

If mainstream gay organizations were to arbitrarily decide tomorrow that the word 'kale' was LGBT-oriented and that gay men should use the world 'kale' in everyday conversation, with Perez Hilton and other icons that lead the LGBT community going "that makes me kale in my pants" on TV, then the Wikipedia article for 'kale' would include a reference to that, as stupid and illogical as that is.

Of course it doesn't make logical sense. Many things in life don't make sense. But that's what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources say that about the topic, then that's mentioned. 96.226.212.238 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

off-topic

The two users above are debating a philosophical question (i.e. "should" HIV/AIDS funding be considered a gay rights question). Since questions of what constitutes a "right" are subjective (rights, unlike rocks, are concepts rather than physical properties of the world, and therefore are determined by subjective or intersubjective valuations rather than objective facts), the above libertarian philosophizing is off-topic. On WP, we go off of what RS say, and numerous RS consider HIV/AIDS funding at the zinheight of the pandemic to have been a gay rights question. Steeletrap (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently a request for comment on what shade of blue should be used on File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg to represent full marriage equality. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy section?

Would it be appropriate to add a section about the legality of conversion therapy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.231.85 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There are laws banning conversion therapy for minors have passed in New Jersey and California. Religious institutions are exempt from this. Both have been upheld so far. I believe it is definitely relevant, as an lgbt issue, and has a place in this article. Would someone mind putting something in?166.147.104.154 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Corporations that support SSM

Rather than list off a large handful of corporations I have just removed the information as being non-notable. Articles should not contain loose lists of information. I mean politics and LGBT organizations I can understand but corporations? Should we list all the baseball teams that support SSM as well? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-gay laws?

What about anti-gay laws that exist in the US, such as the "no homo promo" laws that prohibit discussions of homosexuality in schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.142.15 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in LGBT rights in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LGBT rights in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "whitehouse.gov":

From Health care reform debate in the United States: "Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress-September 2009". Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
From Gay pride: "Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month".
From History of women in the United States: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/01/white-house-releases-first-comprehensive-federal-report-status-american-

I apologize if any of the above ≥are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Redundant" map

Okay, so this map was reverted by @Tinmanic: because they claimed it was "redundant". I think the map should be on the article when it specifically talks about same-sex marriage. We don't necessarily need one map to cover all. There can be a partnership map when the article talks about partnerships in general and a marriage map when it talks about marriage. I'm pretty sure there are many people who want to see what the specific status of same-sex marriage, and if we don't include the United States marriage map we deprive our readers of that. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Having two different maps is too confusing. And your marriage-only map is redundant because the existing consensus map already, and in fact primarily, covers same-sex marriage. In fact, your map differs from the consensus map in just three states (and perhaps soon just two, given that Colorado is in the 10th Circuit where there's a decision pending). People who want to see the status of same-sex marriage can simply use the existing map; I'm not sure anybody besides you has complained about it. An additional map would also mean yet another map that needs to be updated each time a state gains marriage equality. It's just way easier to consolidate everything on one map. Incidentally, your map is in PNG format rather than SVG format and is therefore not editable by a simple text editor. Tinmanic (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tinmanic: If the medium red states' bans are struck down but stayed pending appeal there could be up to 9 states that differ from the marriage map. Also, if the 10th Circuit's decision is stayed, Colorado would still differ from the marriage map.. And, there are people who think the partnership map is over-complicated, which is why they supported removing civil unions from the partnership map. Also, @Dralwik: might upload a SVG version if there is consensus to add the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27:, what you are doing is wrong. You are not allowed to go rogue and undermine consensus. We don't agree with you, deal with it. The consensus at present exists to have a single all-inclusive map. Your two separate map proposal failed, you only garnered one supporter. Unless consensus changes, you should not be posting these maps. Please stop. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is disruptive editing undermining consensus to get your way and can lead to an editor being blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Two people actually. Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: the consensus was to not convert the partnership map into a marriage map. I think each map is useful but that depends on the article in my opinion. Like I said to thegrayanomaly, someone who opposed removing civil unions from the partnerships map said I could make all the maps I want without removing content from the partnership map.Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

When you went and replaced the consensus map with your split maps, you knowingly undermined the consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: I didn't do that on this article so that's not relevant here. Prcc27 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no Q?

Hello everyone. I noticed that there is no "Q" in the any of the LGBT terms in this article. I think that in order to give proper respect to that community and be as politically correct as possible, its imperative that we add that to all the places where it seems fit. If no one has any objections, I will go ahead and make that edit. Let me know. GoGatorMeds (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I replied to the above editor about a similar topic here. I touched on WP:Common name in that case. For this particular case, however, it would be against the WP:Undue weight policy to add "LGBTQ" in place of "LGBT" throughout the article, whether in all instances or not. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Transgender Military Service

One of the top goals for transgender advocacy is military service, yet it is not mentioned in the goals list on this page. I also note that presently, transgendered people are not allowed to serve.

I think we should make the distinction that LGB members can serve openly while transgendered and intersexed people presently cannot serve openly.

This article may misinform the American public about our government because not everyone can distinguish what each letter of LGBT means. If someone doesn't know, they are more likely to lump 'LGBT' into one group. In other words, I'm saying that if someone doesn't know what information is being conveyed, then they may assume that Trans members can serve because people under the LGB 'umbrella' can.

I can already predict what someone may counter: It's already listed in the article; therefore there is no reason to change this. However, LGB service is already listed at both spots. I mean, after all, this article is titled 'LGBT Rights in the United States." Let's be consistent.

Could someone who is an editor quickly fix this? Thanks! :) 98.253.175.243 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wording change?

I added a line in the goals section reading, "Transsexual/Transgendered/Gender Diverse and Intersexed allowed to serve openly in the military" (with a red X). I am wondering if I worded this properly. Does anyone have suggestions on how to improve it? Thanks. 98.253.175.243 (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Missississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Should we include anything about the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the article? Or on a map? SB 2681 was passed by both legislative houses and signed by the governor, Phil Bryant. The law went into effect July 1, 2014. In the law, religious freedom is defined as

23 (c) "Exercise of religion" means the practice or 24 observance of religion. "Exercise of religion" includes, but is 25 not limited to, the ability to act or the refusal to act in a 26 manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held 27 religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or 28 central to a larger system of religious belief.

Line 25 may involve denial of service, which may adversely affect lgbt individuals and some argue it legalized such discrimination; whereas, others argue it is a religious freedom protection. Arizona had a similar bill that was vetoed.

Thoughts? Shall this be put in text, as a new color on the discrimination maps, or omit it?

Source: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2014/pdf/SB/2600-2699/SB2681PS.pdfk

http://m.christianpost.com/news/mississippi-lawmakers-approve-religious-freedom-bill-sb-2681-gov-phil-bryant-will-sign-gay-activists-call-it-discriminatory--117314/ 98.253.175.243 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Congress

What if we had a map showing what each US Senator and US Representative thought on same-sex marriage?98.253.175.243 (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea. We have a section for the opinion of past presidents so I think that this would be fine to implement. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Try something specific instead of what someone "thinks". Criteria like: support for ENDA or the Respect for Marriage Act. That way you'll be able to provide citations in a very clear way and there won't be any guesswork about how strongly one supports SSM, like "supports SSM but thinks each state should be allowed to decide". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

The state of Missouri has not yet legalized gay marriage across the entirety of the state, only cities like St. Louis. So it should not be marked in solid blue on the uppermost map of this page. Can this be fixed for accuracy's sake?WisdomSeer (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

People vs Persons and Political Correctness

Ok, so I wrote the part of the page that says "Transgender people and intersections people not allowed to enlist/serve openly." I'm wondering on the political correctness of the phrase. Would this be more affirming if either or both said "persons" as opposed to "people"? I'd like to know. I'm not transgender or intersex, so I'm not authoritative on this subject.98.253.175.243 (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Kansas

I could be mistaken but I think Kansas now recognizes same sex marriages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C200:C5E1:7C16:56ED:F647:7B34 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Add that transgender people will soon be able to serve in the military

Sec. Defense Ash Carter announced on the 13th of July that there will be a review board to discuss implementing the dropping of the ban on transgender service. The estimated time he gave was six months so in the future they will be able to serve.

Done - Teammm ^talk
_email 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting long and excessive

With developments in the last few years, especially with same-sex marriage, this article has slowly grown longer and longer. It is now at the point where it is excessive. For example, there are plenty of other sub-articles about same-sex marriage and we do not need all the information here about each state. And much of it is behind current events. Like all the federal court rulings aren't there. Only mentions the ones up until July 2014, many happened after. I think it should be worked on to make this article cleaner, more to the point, and precise. Link to sub-articles to shorten or even eliminate certain sections. Gabe (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

EEOC Rules LGB Federal Employees Protected Under Civil Rights Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent out a report saying that there the Civil Rights Act protects federal employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.^[1]

Will this be reflected in the page? --Nay1989 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but someone added "In 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow sexual orientation discrimination in employment because it is a form of sex discrimination.[5][6]"

to the first paragraph before the index. Does that work or do you think more change to the article is necessary? (In all honesty, I'm not very knowledgable on this subject.) Tenor12 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tenor Twelve's Edits

IF they want to revert, that's fine, but please stop citing my name. I specifically disagreed with you on this point. Czolgolz (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101226005325/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-dont-ask-repeal-20101222,0,4220844.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-dont-ask-repeal-20101222,0,4220844.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "Summary table of LGBT rights goals in the United States"

What does this table even mean? What does check mark / X even mean? I'm going to guess nationwide/by state? This chart makes no sense and is not explained anywhere.

I would like to see this clarified as well. What I would like to see is a mouseover/phone-one-tap to see a list or a map of all of the jurisdictions with such a policy. I don't know how to make edits like this at this point.

Thanks! TenorTwelve (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary table - What are the bases for inclusion here?

Some of the issues outlined in the summary table seem pretty arbitrary, assuming the editors who added them are serious. For instance, "Removal of gender labels on children's products." This is entirely a decision by whatever companies and / or retailers produce and distribute these items.

Since someone felt it necessary to place this in the summary table, is the reader to assume that even a sizable percentage of LGBT rights groups are actually pushing for federal laws that forbid this type of labeling? I'm not even sure how retailers choose to label toys has anything to do with civil rights. I'm not personally opposed to retailers dropping gender labels from toys, but it's hardly a legislative matter, much less something that should be included in a summary of LGBT rights, as if it were any kind of milestone. 98.86.114.212 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree - it seems like people have been adding every possible thing they can think of, forgetting that it's a summary and most of the information should be added in the body of the article, if relevant. Since these summaries are a common feature of "LGBT rights in ..." articles for many countries, perhaps we should have a centralised discussion at WP:LGBT to determine a common set of entries for these tables that can be applied across all the articles. - htonl (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I added these edits. These are important to LGBT dignity/rights/acceptance because they are relevant to advancing the lives of gender-creative, gender-diverse, gender-expansive, and transgender kids. This entirely has to do with lifting societal restrictions on gender expression which is paramount to the purpose of LGBT Rights.

For example, many trans girls and cis boys are prevented from or are bullied for playing with "girls toys" whereas many trans boys and cis girls are prevented from playing with "boys toys." Lifting these restrictions will help change the culture in many ways beneficial to LGBT rights.

I will address some objections raised: (What entity must make this change and the minimal discussion about this surrounding LGBT rights)

Actually, there are LGBT rights groups that advocate this. If you look at the references attached to the goal on the page, you will see that multiple US LGBT journalism sites have included articles on this. If you're looking for a group, there is one in the UK called "Let Toys Be Toys."

I am aware that this is not always at the attention of LGBT Rights groups, or national discussion. I put this on there to bring it to the attention to many within our movement. I am aware that this probably won't or can't be in the legislative/judicial policymaking sphere, but this does not mean that this can't be addressed. Even if the government can't do this, the presence of this goal on the list puts pressure on stores to make the change on their own.

Regarding the comment on the list expanding: This page should be designed to bring about maximum awareness on LGBT Rights. I have added this and many other things to try to make this page as comprehensive as possible. I consider the 8-10 goals found on each country page to be standard and the presence of more goals for the purpose of a comprehensive, specific, and expansive agenda designed to inspire imagination when it comes to the scope of LGBT rights. For many of these, I have been doing research for weeks or months to add goals that would liberate people when given awareness. For example: Why did I add the goal on ending LGBTQ detention in immigration centers? The reason: 1 in 500 immigrants in immigration detention centers are transgender, but 1 in every 5 (reported) sexual assaults within such detention centers victimize the transgender community. This is why Jennicet Gutierrez interrupted the President to make her voice heard on a national scale. Her needs were not addressed by mainstream LGBT Rights discourse and hence, she felt a need to disrupt conversation and to utilize a national platform to bring about true liberation. ^[2]

I am not done expanding the list and have ideas in mind to improve the text of the article as well.

Thanks, TenorTwelve (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

First openly gay presidential candidate

In the article we claim that the Libertarian Party nominated the first openly gay man in 1972 and later that the Socialist Party USA nominated the first one in 1980. Which is correct? Revstate (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump and LGBT

Is there somebody who have information about Trump's LGBT policy? In occasion his inauguration I would like to write an article about new American president in Czech wikipedia. Thank you very much Jan Fial (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comprehensive summary table of LGBT rights in the United States

The table in this section needs a key to explain how the checks and X's work (check vs check/X vs X/check vs X meaning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joziva (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Blood Donation

on the chart there is a 'Check' for being able to donate blood with the caveat that one has not had sex for 12 months, seems like that would not count as a 'Check' as it still isnt legal for sexually active LGB people Remusofreem (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you go to the Red-Cross's webpage, it actually gives a clear answer as to why this is the case. The same restriction applies to those who have received blood transfusions, gotten tattoos, etc. It's based on the factual risk of HIV transmission, not just "we don't want gay blood". Hence, why it is a 'Check'. It's unreasonable to force people to do statistically dangerous things in the name of "equality"/"pride". Until HIV risk normalizes between MSM and the general population, there will be cause for this restriction. Again, this is their standard deferment, and it applies to a lot of things other than MSM. Furthermore, "legal" is not the right term here. It's still "legal" to do it in under 12 months, but no (respected) medical institution is willing to risk giving one of its patients HIV in the name of "equal rights".

Furthermore it isn't even LGB people that it affects, its ANYONE who has engaged with Men who have Sex with Men or those men themselves.

If you want to learn more about the restriction (and why it exists), go here: https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eligibility-requirements/lgbtq-donors.html

ElectroChip123 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is Pence in here?

Unlike Trump, Mike Pence currently has no affect on U.S. laws. So why is there a section devoted to him under the "Presidents" section? It doesn't add anything that can't already be found on his Wikipedia page, and it doesn't have any implications for U.S. LGBT policy. Hence, I feel it should be deleted from this page, but I would like support for this decision before doing so. ElectroChip123 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pence does not make national policy, but his role has been to enunciate and clarify and justify presidential policies. So yes, he's a major player. Rjensen (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. Pence's stances on LGBT rights are extremely radical, including support of funding conversion therapies and a federal ban on same-sex marriages. Those are not typical stances even for a conservative Republican, and as the vice president he has a substantial influence on the public opinion of Trump's base. Even if he does not directly affect LGBT-related laws, his influence as VP cannot be ignored. Guycn2 · ☎ 20:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

After considering your comments, I can see that it is relevant information to those who would be seeking out this wikipedia page. However, I still feel that placing Pence in the "presidents" section gives people the false impression that he is the president. Perhaps he should be placed in a subsection of "Trump" (although that could/would throw off the flow/consistency of the article) or a new "other prominent figures" section (a new category at the same level as "presidents") which would include prominent activists and politicians on this topics (necessarily including Mike Pence). Personally, I'm more in favor of creating an "Other Prominent Figures" section of the page, but what are your thoughts on this? Also, if we do go that route, it would require us to add information about all/most of the prominent figures in LGBT rights in the USA to this article. While I think that is info that should be in this article, we may need to organize a "wikifest" to "get-it-done". ElectroChip123 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"presidential" includes top White House aides who speak for Trump. I see Pence as a top White House official who often gives official statements on presidential policy, so it belongs here. Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, to a point. If we had such sections for influential aids for ALL presidents, then it wouldn't be as much of a shift in flow. The way it is now gives the appearance that Pence is being singled out, even though he should brought up here. I actually have an idea to reconcile all of this, but I'm going to bring it up in a different heading (stay tuned). ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Massive Overhaul; Going for Wikipedia gold?

1. Create a true "History" section

While the current format of listing presidential stances and policies regarding LGBT rights does provide readers useful information, I feel that it doesn't actually answer the question that people came here for. Namely, it doesn't talk about things like the Stonewall riots, nor does it discuss what the actual laws were back in the time of George Washington. I feel like most of this "presidential" stuff should be moved simply to the respective presidents Wikipedia page (liked to via the first instance of their name here, if they remain mentioned here at all). Many of the things mentioned in this section didn't actually have an impact on the LGBT community. The presidents statements over time probably reflect the general public sentiment on these issues, but including all of isn't entirely helpful.

My proposal would be to make a new "History" section based on the following divisions: Early USA - Stonewall, Stonewall Riots, Post-Stonewall - Today. This "History" section would incorporate the following: "presidents", "Supreme court decisions", and any bits of history in the other sections. This would also include how the major political platform's views have shifted over time.

2. Remove the "Political parties" section.

The relevant info should either already be in the history section, or should be moved from here to the respective political party's Wikipedia page. Lastly, there should be a link to "political parties of the United States" in the "See also" section.

3. Combine all the "Rights" into one section, quite possibly with the title "LGBT rights in the USA".

Basically, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, should be combined to give a quick overview of exactly what rights LGBT people have in the United States, and what the relevant laws are. At least 75% of the stuff listed in these sections belongs in a proper "History" section.

4. Create a "notable figures" (name not finalized) section.

This would include current activists and opponents of LGBT rights in the USA.

5. Create a "public opinion" section.

This section should include all info on public perception of LGBT in the USA, as well as the relevant info about political parties.

ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Transgender military ban

The article sidebar (headlined "LGBT rights in the U.S." and containing an image of the globe) has the following information as of 19 March 2019:

 Military
 * Yes, openly;
 * "Don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed in September 2011
 * Transgender people allowed to serve openly since 2016 (temporarily banned in 2018 and 2019)

This is outdated and needs to be updated. As there was a recent revert, can we discuss how it should be updated? I disagree with the "undo" comment here:

 * 20:54, 14 March 2019‎ Deli nk (Undid revision 887786663 by 74.111.125.93 (talk) it isn't a ban, they have to serve using their birth gender)
 * 20:45, 14 March 2019‎ 74.111.125.93

As explained in the Wiki article Transgender personnel in the United States military, it is more complex than that. People who have ever had hormones or surgery for gender transition are disqualified from joining the military; they cannot simply opt to serve in their gender assigned at birth. Also, if they have ever expressed dissatisfaction with their birth sex/gender or been diagnosed with "gender dysphoria," they have to prove that they haven't felt that way for 3 years before joining the military. In essence, that is a ban on transgender people. If you have ever changed your body, or if you have recently ever felt transgender, you can't serve. (There are exemptions for existing military personnel who came out before the memorandum was issued on March 12, 2019.) Some people may "go in the closet" to avoid being penalized by the ban, but the fact that they hide their identity just proves that there is a ban.

What can we write in the sidebar to briefly/accurately reflect this?

Tuckerlieberman (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tuckerlieberman: You can't be diagnosed with something that isn't a mental health problem / disorder. All mental health disorders disqualify you from service, including ADHD. Yes, just being extra hyper can disqualify you from military service, and yes, you have to prove that that diagnosis expired 3 years ago before you can serve. Gender dysphoria is not being treated differently than any other mental disorder. Lastly, to answer the question, "No currently transgender people allowed" would be more accurate statement. ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

School Bullying Policies

I am noticing there is no map regarding LGBTQ anti bullying laws in schools on this page. Wikipedia already has a map (link below) so all that needs to be done is to insert the picture and to write some text to go with it. Can this be added? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:School_bullying_laws_in_the_United_States.svg

Probably. ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"LGBT anti-discrimination law in public schools and public colleges" goal achieved in 1994

This Wikipedia page says that there was "LGBT anti-discrimination law in public schools and public colleges" goal achieved in 1994, but it doesn't say anything about what statute they are referring to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Summary_table_of_LGBT_rights_goals_in_the_United_States

We need to add sinebot to this page. Also, not sure what you are talking about with "goal achieved". ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

LGBT anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations

There is no in-depth section about the status of non-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations. This should be in addition to the existing sections about laws in housing, employment and hate crime laws.

The in-depth sections are probably in the pages dedicated to them. I'd trout ya, but alas, the signature does not exist. ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

U.N. Resolution

According to: https://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf, the actual resolution itself, the main discussion is the death penalty. The death penalty for homosexuals is about the 7th death penalty to be condemned by the resolution. That is, it wasn't nearly the highest priority of the resolution. Furthermore, the title of the resolution is "the question of the death penalty" not "the question of executing homosexuals". Yet, whenever I correct this in the article, it gets reverted. Look, I hate the death penalty and think it should be abolished (no government should have that power), but it does no good to misrepresent this U.N. resolution as something it wasn't. ElectroChip123 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

History and Present-Day

The article is extremely long. Can it be split into "history" and "present-day"? I suppose many readers come here to find the most current information. Some current information is indeed at the top of the article, but, after that, the history is told from oldest to most recent. Readers might not realize that some of the 2019 stuff is buried far at the bottom and that they have to scroll through the Reagan administration to find it. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a draft over at Draft:History of LGBT rights in the United States. Has there been consensus to split yet? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there has not been a discussion. No one has yet responded to my proposal here. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"LGBT people allowed to serve openly in the military" in Summary Table

LBG people are allowed to serve openly, but trans people are not (see, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_personnel_in_the_United_States_military and the sources cited there). Is there an intermediate symbol, should we add a footnote, or should it be split into "Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people allowed to serve openly in the military" and "Transgender people allowed to serve openly in the military"? KenyonP (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court recently ruled by a 6-3 vote that the protections against discrimination by sex also cover sexual orientation and gender identity. This is being considered a landmark bill by many (NBC, Hill, CNN), and the article should likely be updated accordingly, as this means there is now effective federal protection against unemployment discrimination.

Further sources: Associated Press LA Times Politico Official Supreme Court Ruling Builder018 (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It is important to discuss conversion therapy bans by medical professionals

Many are even cited by the GLAAD and Human Rights Campaign[2][3]Mancalledsting (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As you have been told twice (and then you edit warred) the issue is NOT whether it should be discussed. The issue is whether there should be a separate section on this topic. You have been reverted by two different editors. Please stop edit warring. Wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Mancalledsting has now added the "Conversion therapy" (originally "Conservation theory" before it was fixed) three times, and been reverted twice. Rather than engage in an edit war, I would like to initiate a discussion here about the topic.

I feel that conversion therapy does not require a separate section in this article because, as the section states, there are no federal legal protections regarding this issue, but rather a series of professional society opinions on the matter. The state protections regarding conversion therapy are covered elsewhere in the article. Therefore, this section adds nothing of value to the discussion of "LGBT rights in the United States". I invite Mancalledsting and other users to weigh in on this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this section pending the outcome of this discussion because I believe it misrepresents the facts. While the APA opposes conversion therapy, and has called on lawmakers to ban the practice, the APA itself does not ban the practice (and probably has no authority to do so). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not "misrepresent the facts." It is false to claim that "the APA itself does not ban the practice" as they indeed do While they and other groups mentioned by GLAAD and Human Rights Campaign don't speak for a few selective groups which do use the practice, they do speak for the medical profession.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mancalledsting: Please refer to the message I have left on your user talk page. The source you have cited indicate opposition to conversion therapy, but not a ban of the practice. There is no evidence that either the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Psychological Association have any authority to actually ban the practice, but they can and do advocate with various legislative bodies to ban the practice and they do recommend to their members that the practice may be harmful and has no therapeutic value. This is not the same as a ban. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Though limited to within the organizations mentioned, they are indeed de facto bans.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mancalledsting: You'll have to provide a better source than the one's you've mentioned to verify that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Homosexuality in the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Homosexuality in the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3#Homosexuality in the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Transgender people in the military ban

I'm just wondering why in the summary grid it lists "Yes/No" and "Most" Transgender personnel allowed to serve openly since 2021. I may just be misunderstanding the executive order/what actually happened today, but why is it "most"? Pinkalotk (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Commission rules sexual orientation discrimination illegal in Florida

I'm not exactly sure how to update the discrimination protections map, but earlier today the Florida Commission on Human Relations ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity would be included in their discrimination protections due to the recent supreme court ruling and the Biden administration's executive order, so I assume that the rest of the counties in Florida that don't have it right now would be filled in on the map? Here's a source for the story just to confirm: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/400908-commission-rules-sexual-orientation-discrimination-illegal-in-florida

Since it's so recent I just wanted to let whoever edits the map know, if there's some way to edit it myself then I can if I need to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer077 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Single-person restrooms with gender-segregated signage (and a lock) are given new signs saying "All-Gender Restroom" (by policy/law)

Is this actually a right, or is it a policy to make things more inclusive? Of course, it would be nice if building codes were updated so as to make this a rule, but does it rise to the level of being a right? Mandating that all single-use bathrooms be labeled as "all-gender restrooms" does not give transgender people access to "the restroom of their choice", it only makes architecture/buildings more inclusive. In contrast, a law that requires businesses to let transgender customers use the bathroom of their choice would be granting them a legal right/protection. That is, it is a right to be able to use the restroom of one's choice, whereas it's simply nice gesture to have all single-person bathrooms use inclusive signage. Given the gulf of difference between "using inclusive signage" and "being allowed to marry", the former policy clearly doesn't fit with the rest of the table. Likewise, I would suggest the creation of something like a separate "LGBT inclusion policies" table where things like mandating the use of "all gender restroom" or "family restroom" signs for all single-person non-residential restrooms would be included. I would also suggest that such tables appear on other "LGBT rights in X country" articles if that is necessary to maintain article standardization. Any thoughts? ElectroChip123 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sodomy without quotation marks?

Should we really be using the term "sodomy" without quotation marks in a couple instances to refer to homosexual activity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.255.150.37 (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because that is how the laws often referred to gay sex. Though sodomy was also sometimes used to describe all types anal sex (including heterosexual). ElectroChip123 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Cohabitation agreements

The courts in virtually all fifty states recognize cohabitation agreements as de facto domestic partnerships. Couldn't these agreements be considered "de facto" same-sex unions? ????? 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because "same-sex unions" (did you mean civil unions?) come with de jure protections that most cohabitation agreements lack. Chief among these are hospital visitation rights and automatic next of kin. ElectroChip123 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmyosef. Peer reviewers: Cooperc123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juszhou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.stewart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 7 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baseballfan54321.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to LGBTQ+ to be More Inclusive

This article should be renamed to LGBTQ+ rights in the United States to be more inclusive and reflective of the continued expansion of the community and its rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompendiumWizard (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I support this and admire your WP:BOLD proposal but that would probably require some mass consensus in favor of changing ALL LGBTQ+ articles to the expanded initialism. Maybe propose at some centralized location like Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Dronebogus (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I came here to make the same suggestion, but when I went to research continuity as User:Dronebogus suggested, I discovered that "LGBT" is what we're using across Wikipedia, and in the lead of the Wikipedia:LGBT page, it explains the different variants. For now, I am going to add a similar variant caveat to this article. Feel free to revert if it seems unnecessary. Thanks! Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Since Biden's first day in office, the White House has been using "LGBTQI+ Americans" in its executive orders.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/15/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-historic-executive-order-advancing-lgbtqi-equality-during-pride-month/

Maybe, it being what he uses, might add some weight to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.177.195 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

^ Geidner, Chris. "Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Barred By Existing Law, Federal Commission Rules". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
^ http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/06/25/exclusive-i-interrupted-obama-because-we-need-to-be-heard/

[1] Geidner, Chris. "Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Barred By Existing Law, Federal Commission Rules". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 17 July 2015.

[2] ttp://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/06/25/exclusive-i-interrupted-obama-because-we-need-to-be-heard/

[1]

[2]