The 2025 Tokyo Marathon will allow athletes to select nonbinary as their gender identity instead of male or female during registration. Now, all six Abbott World Marathon Majors — a circuit of the largest, most renowned marathons across the globe — have a nonbinary category for athletes.
“The Tokyo Marathon Foundation is committed to promoting DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion) and aims to be the most inclusive race in the world,” the foundation, which organizes the Tokyo race, said in a news release on Monday.
In 2019, the Tokyo Marathon Foundation signed a pledge to promote gender diversity in sporting events with Pride House Tokyo, an organization that aims to create a safe space for LGBTQ athletes in Japan. Pride House Tokyo has been advising the foundation on best practices to accommodate athletes outside of the gender binary.
In addition to allowing participants to register under a nonbinary category, the next Tokyo Marathon, which will take place on March 2, will provide gender-neutral restrooms and changing areas located at the start line, finish and along the course. There will also be seminars on LGBTQ issues for volunteers and administrators working the event.
Activist and runner Cal Calamia has been a part of a growing effort to bring gender inclusivity into major races since 2022, when they fought for medals to be awarded to the top nonbinary finishers of San Francisco’s Bay to Breakers course. Calamia, who uses both he and they pronouns, has gone on to petition the world’s largest marathons, such as Boston and New York, to enact change.
He has competed in every U.S. Marathon Major since a nonbinary category was established in each.
“I felt a wave of relief and pride when I woke up to an email from my contact at the Tokyo Marathon Monday morning,” Calamia said. “Now, nonbinary marathoners can pursue our dreams of running all of the World Marathon Majors, just as men and women have been able to do for a long time.”
The other five World Marathon Majors — Berlin, Boston, Chicago, London and New York — added their own nonbinary categories in the last few years, starting with New York in 2021. New York made history in 2022 being the only World Marathon Major to award prize money to its nonbinary top finishers.
In its race guidelines for the 2025 marathon, Tokyo did not indicate whether there will be prize money awarded to any of its nonbinary competitors.
Since introducing a nonbinary field, participation of gender-diverse athletes in World Marathon Majors has grown. New York saw a doubling of its nonbinary competitors from 45 participants in 2022 to 96 in 2023. Meanwhile, London had a turnout of over 100 nonbinary competitors in 2023, its first year offering the category.
“The recognition of nonbinary athletes at Tokyo represents the power of the collective in advocating for our inclusion and will have effects across the globe that reach far beyond the running world,” Calamia said. “It’s imperative that these divisions do more than just exist.”
Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum prepares for her last service at the Masonic Hall in New York on June 28.Andres Kudacki / AP
For more than three decades, Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum has led the nation’s largest LGBTQ synagogue through the myriad ups and downs of the modern gay-rights movement — through the AIDS crisis, the murder of Matthew Shepard, the historic civil-rights advances that included marriage equality, and mostly recently the backlash against transgender rights.
She is now stepping down from that role and shifting into retirement. The New York City synagogue that she led for 32 years — Congregation Beit Simchat Torah in midtown Manhattan — will have to grapple with its identity after being defined by its celebrity rabbi for so long.
Her retirement also comes at a challenging moment for the LGBTQ-rights movement. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, but conservative politicians are enacting restrictions on transgender healthcare, restricting LGBTQ curriculum in schools, and proposing bans on the performances of drag queens.
“I’ve been blessed and privileged to have the opportunity to use the gifts I have, on behalf of God’s vision for the world,” Kleinbaum said in an interview. “I’m very, very lucky that I’ve been able to do this. I just feel like now is the time to make room for a younger generation.”
Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum sings during her last service at the Masonic Hall in New York on June 28.Andres Kudacki / AP
Embraced by her congregation and left-leaning politicians, Kleinbaum, 65, taught an unapologetic progressive vision for Judaism that resonated beyond the enclave of Manhattan and liberal Judaism. When Donald Trump was elected president, Kleinbaum had the synagogue do outreach to Muslims. The congregation also built an immigration clinic to help LGBTQ refugees in hostile parts of the world get asylum in the U.S.
“It is a religious calling to help the immigrant. I see that it is just as deeply important for (the synagogue) as it is leading Friday night services,” Kleinbaum said.
Congregation Bet Simach Torah, better known as CBST, has roughly 1,000 paying members. About 4,000 Jews, from nonreligious to Orthodox, show up to the temple’s High Holy Day services, historically held in New York’s Jacob Javits Convention Center on the West Side of Manhattan.
The temple’s regular congregants have been a Who’s Who of media and LGBTQ historical figures. Edie Windsor, who sued and won to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, was in regular attendance while she was alive. Andy Cohen, of “Real Housewives” fame, is there regularly. Joan Rivers showed up for Yom Kippur. Kleinbaum’s wife is Randi Weingarten, the head of the nation’s biggest teachers union.
Appointed in 1992, Kleinbaum spent much of her first year burying members of her congregation, many of them dying from AIDS. The need for a salaried rabbi to provide pastoral care was among the biggest reasons for CBST to hire its first rabbi. One of her first funeral services was for a member of the search committee that hired her.
The 1990s brought the increased visibility of gay and lesbians in the public sphere, but also brought the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between only a man and a woman.
“She really was doing rabbinical triage work at the beginning, working with a community that ultimately saw (a third) of its members die of AIDS,” said William Hibsher, a member of CBST for several decades who was there when Kleinbaum was appointed.
Hibsher was not an observant Jew in early 1990s, but he said he felt inspired by Kleinbaum’s work as well as the care she provided to his partner, who died from AIDS in the mid-1990s. He later became heavily involved with the synagogue, including serving on its board of directors and helping raise millions for its current location on West 30th Street.
When New York legalized same-sex marriage in 2013, Kleinbaum stood in the park across the street from the marriage bureau and performed same-sex weddings outdoors. Among the couples she married in 2014 were two men who had spent 20 months planning their wedding, which was held in a former Broadway theater.
Kleinbaum hasn’t specified what she plans to do in retirement, but said she’s likely to continue doing social justice work or working in Democratic politics. CBST has given her the title of “senior rabbi emerita” to show a level of connectedness as she steps down, but the bimah at CBST will no longer be hers.
Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum reads with her daughter during her last service at the Masonic Hall in New York on June 28.Andres Kudacki / AP
Even people who would be considered her ideological adversaries have found common ground to collaborate with her on issues of religious freedom and human rights.
When President Joe Biden appointed Kleinbaum to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which monitors and researches freedom of religious expression worldwide, she served as a commissioner along alongside Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. The council opposes the LGBTQ-rights movement.
“She’s able to step back and see where (two with strong ideological differences) can meet on core issues, and realize here’s where we can find common ground,” said Fred Davie, an administrator at Union Theological Seminary and a longtime friend of Kleinbaum.
Kleinbaum served two terms on the USCIRF. Her first term ended early in 2020 when she decided to focus attention on her congregation amid the COVID-19 pandemic. For her and the congregation, it was familiar territory after the AIDS crisis.
“We knew immediately many of the elements that we had to deal with: isolation, loneliness, fear,” Kleinbaum said. “There were differences, of course, between AIDS, but many things were enough similar that it almost felt like muscle memory.”
For the congregation, there seems to be a degree of uncertainty of what the synagogue will be without her. CBST, like many congregations, skews toward older members; many have been with Kleinbaum since the beginning.
The synagogue named Jason Klein as new chief rabbi earlier this year; he will start on July 1. But the consensus among members seems to be that Kleinbaum is simply irreplaceable.
“I think people, in their heart of hearts, wanted to find a Kleinbaum 2.0 to replace her,” Hibsher said. “There’s a landscape of wonderful progressive synagogues throughout Manhattan. So part of the question for the congregation will be: Is there a need for an LGBT synagogue in the year 2024? I think there is.”
While Kleinbaum laid out her plans to leave CBST a year ago, there were audible gasps at Yom Kippur services last September among the attendees when it was mentioned that CBST would no longer be headed by her. Her second-to-last Shabbat service, held June 21, was a sold-out event. The keynote speaker: New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“Most importantly, she has given us a space,” James said, using her hands to point to the synagogue and its standing room only crowed. “This space. Where we can be safe. Where we can be free.”
The Night Belongs To You at the Twilight T-Dance, the signature event of Gay Wine Weekend! COMING UP IN 2 WEEKS Reserve your tickets now for the gay event of the season – the Twilight T-Dance at the prestigious La Crema Winery estate. Join us for a night of celebration under the Sonoma sky, dancing to the sounds of DJ Blackwell. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to dance, connect, and celebrate community in a setting that promises unforgettable memories and lasting friendships. Act swiftly to bask in the enchantment of Sonoma Wine Country – reserve your place today and prepare to create cherished memories that will endure for a lifetime!
GAY WINE WEEKEND COMMENCES IN 2 WEEKS!FRIDAY, JULY 19
THE VIP OPENING RECEPTION Friday, July 19th. 3:00pm-6:00pmVintner’s Resort, Host Hotel Event CenterSponsored by the Russian River Valley WineGrowers Association THIS EVENT IS FOR BOTH MAGNUM & VIP PASS HOLDERS AND VINTNER RESORT HOTEL GUESTS and SPONSORS
OVER 15 REGIONAL WINERIES WILL BE POURING THEIR BEST FOR YOU AS YOU ARRIVE IN TOWN. UNWIND AND RELAX WHILE MEETING OTHER GAY WINE WEEKEND GUESTS AT THIS VIP OPENING RECEPTION. FOR PASS HOLDERS YOU CAN PICK UP YOUR PASSES AT THE RECEPTION. AFTER THAT YOUR PASSES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE FRONT DESK OF THE HOTEL. MEET YOU THERE!
WINEMAKER DINNERS OF GAY WINE WEEKEND FRIDAY, JULY 19TH
There are a limited number of seats available at some of ourFriday evening Winemaker Dinners. Grab them while you can and experience an evening of food & wine in some of the most beautiful Sonoma County Wine Country settings.
STILL IN NEED OF A HOTEL ROOM…THERE ARE A LIMITED NUMBER OF ROOMS AVAILABLE AT OUR HOST HOTEL,
STAY AT OUR HOST HOTEL AND BE WHERE ALL THE ACTION TAKES PLACE FROM THE VIP OPENING RECEPTION TO THE SUNDAY DRAG QUEEN BRUNCH & WINE AUCTION. ALL SHUTTLES DEPART FROM THE HOST HOTEL THROUGHOUT THE WEEKEND! CALL DIRECTLY AND MENTION GAY WINE WEEKEND 707-575-7350
Approximately 665,000 LGBTQ adults live in Los Angeles County. They make up nearly 9% of the county’s adult population, and they live, work, shop, and seek services throughout the county. This report presents information about their experiences with discrimination and harassment in the areas of education, employment, housing, health care, public spaces, and law enforcement, as well as findings about their health and economic well-being. The report uses representative data collected from 1,006 LGBTQ Los Angelenos who completed the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s 2023 Los Angeles County Health Survey (LACHS), including 504 LGBTQ Angelenos who also completed the Lived Experiences in Los Angeles County (LELAC) Survey, which was a call-back study to LACHS developed by the Williams Institute. Survey adults were diverse in terms of sexual orientation, gender identity, race, age, income, and other personal characteristics, reflecting the diversity of Los Angeles County’s LGBTQ population. This report is being published with three other reports to provide a fuller view of LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County:
Several main themes emerge from the analyses presented in this report:
Affording life in Los Angeles. Los Angeles County’s historic promise of equality and freedom for LGBTQ adults is being undermined by a rapidly escalating cost of living. More than one-third of LGBTQ adults are living below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and they have higher rates of food insecurity and housing instability than non-LGBTQ adults. Being able to afford living in Los Angeles County is the most common worry among LGBTQ people, and it is the primary issue they would like elected officials to address. As the county’s leaders work to address the housing crisis and other economic issues, they must take the specific challenges of LGBTQ people into account.
Safety concerns. Many LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County shape their daily lives to protect their safety. They are more likely than non-LGBTQ adults to be victims of crime, and many face harassment when out in public. To protect themselves, many avoid public transportation, parks, and beaches; do not frequent LGBTQ-related businesses; and do not attend events such as Pride festivals. LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County want more protection from law enforcement, including prosecution of hate crimes. However, some are reluctant to contact law enforcement because of bad experiences that include verbal, physical, and sexual harassment. LGBTQ people and spaces need to be protected, and work needs to continue to make law enforcement more reflective of and responsive to the LGBTQ community.
Ongoing discrimination and harassment. Even with supportive state and local laws in place, a number of LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County continue to experience discrimination and harassment in education, employment, housing, public accommodations, and health care. Nearly half are not out to their supervisors at work. As a result of these negative experiences, many don’t get the education, income, opportunities, and services they need. These findings confirm that equality “on the books” does not always translate to equality in lived experience. Local protections need to be strengthened and backed with consistent enforcement, training, and monitoring for compliance.
Challenges in building families and receiving social support. Most LGBTQ people are not born into LGBTQ families and communities that pass on community culture, support, and coping mechanisms. Instead, many LGBTQ people in Los Angeles County are not out to all of their friends and families, face unique challenges in having children, don’t feel welcome in their neighborhoods, and are isolated from religious and spiritual communities. LGBTQ adults are more likely than non-LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County to live alone and to feel lonely, especially those who are older. For some, including LGBTQ adults of color, discrimination within LGBTQ communities adds to isolation. Policy solutions for LGBTQ people must address these unique challenges to building families and communities, with a particular focus on services and programs that assume a certain level of family support or that are administered by faith-based organizations.
Resultant health disparities. As a result of their lived experiences, LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County have higher rates of mental health issues, substance use issues, and disabilities. These health conditions are exacerbated by unfair treatment from health care providers, leading many LGBTQ people to avoid care or to not be out to their providers. Improving the health of LGBTQ people and reducing sexual orientation and gender identity–related health disparities will require initiatives specifically tailored to the community, ongoing training of providers, civil rights enforcement, and community education.
Vulnerable subpopulations. Specific subpopulations within the LGBTQ community face even greater challenges. Throughout this analysis, we found that LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL, transgender and nonbinary adults, LGBTQ adults of color, and bisexual men and women are disproportionately impacted by discrimination, harassment, and isolation and account for many of the disparities between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ adults.
Communities of resilience. Despite the challenges, most LGBTQ adults agree that Los Angeles County is a good place for LGBTQ people to live and that elected officials are responsive to their needs. They celebrate the many ways that LGBTQ people contribute to the unique identity of Los Angeles, including by adding to its rich diversity; serving as models for others to be strong, love, and live their lives authentically; providing leadership in arts and entertainment; and living with some “sparkle” and “joy.” While facing numerous challenges, many LGBTQ people are already working alongside elected officials and others to make Los Angeles County a better place not only for LGBTQ people but for everyone.
Key Findings
Demographics
LGBTQ people reflect the rich diversity of Los Angeles.
LGBTQ adults make up 9% of the county’s adult population, approximately 665,000 LGBTQ adults.
Approximately 211,000 LGBTQ adults live in L.A. County Supervisory District 3, 120,000 in District 1; 109,000 in District 4; 109,000 in District 5; and 98,000 in District 2.
Forty-two percent of LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County are 18 to 35 years old, 48% are 35 to 64 years old, and 10% are 65 years of age or older.
Fourteen percent of LGBTQ adults in the county are transgender or nonbinary.
Two-thirds of LGBTQ adults in the county are people of color, including 39% who are Latinx; 13% who are Asian; 8% who are Black; and 4% who are multiracial, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or “other race.”
Nearly one in five LGBTQ adults (18%) in the county were born outside of the U.S.
Forty-one percent of LGBTQ adults in the county met criteria used by the U.S. Census Bureau to assess disability.
More than one in four LGBTQ adults (28%) are currently married or in a domestic partnership.
Almost one in five LGBTQ adults (18%) in the county is a parent.
More than one-third of LGBTQ adults (35%) in Los Angeles County are living below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL).1
Social Climate and Overview
Many LGBTQ adults agreed that Los Angeles County is a good place for LGBTQ people to live (81%), although LGBTQ people of color (77%) and those living below 200% FPL (69%) were less likely to agree than those who are White (90%) or have higher incomes (89%).
Most LGBTQ adults felt that California (86%) and the country (84%) have become more accepting over the past decade than their local neighborhood (73%).
Despite feeling that Los Angeles County is a good place to live, a number of LGBTQ people reported experiences of mistreatment and harassment and reported that they avoid certain professionals and places because they fear unfair treatment or threats to their safety.
Even though many LGBTQ adults view Los Angeles County as supportive, many are not out to others, including family and friends, supervisors and coworkers at work, or health care providers.
More than one-third of LGBTQ adults (36%) reported unfair treatment based on their LGBTQ identity while living in Los Angeles County, including 28% who reported that this had occurred within the past five years.
More than half of LGBTQ adults (51%) reported being verbally harassed in Los Angeles County because of their LGBTQ identity, including 39% who reported occurrences within the past five years.
Many LGBTQ adults said they had avoided public places like businesses, parks, and public transportation in the past year because they feared unfair treatment or threats to their safety due to their LGBTQ identities.
Family, Friends, and Social Support
Many LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County are not out to all of their family members and friends.
Only about half (52%) are out to all of their immediate family.
LGBTQ people of color are less likely than White LGBTQ adults to be out to all of their immediate family (43% vs. 69%).
Almost half of cisgender bisexual men (48%) are not out to any of their immediate family members, compared to 18% of cisgender bisexual women, 8% of lesbians, and 7% of gay men.
Three-quarters of LGBTQ adults (75%) are out to all of their LGBTQ friends, and half (50%) are out to all of their non-LGBTQ friends.
Eleven percent of LGBTQ adults in the county are caregivers compared to 18% of non-LGBTQ adults.
LGBTQ adults in the county are more likely to live alone (29% vs. 16%) than non-LGBTQ adults and are twice as likely to feel lonely (48% vs. 23%).
LGBTQ adults who are 50 years of age and older are twice as likely to live alone than non- LGBTQ adults (43% vs. 21%).
Fewer LGBTQ adults than non-LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County (52% vs. 65%) feel that they always or usually get the social and emotional support they need.
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL were less likely to report the same as compared to those with higher incomes (39% vs. 59%).
Family Formation
In Los Angeles County, the majority (62%) of LGBTQ residents 18 to 49 years old would like to have a child or expand their families.
Most are considering a variety of strategies for doing so, including assisted reproductive technologies (ART) (such as using donor sperm, IVF, and surrogacy) and adoption.
Cost was identified as a barrier by 61% of LGBTQ adults who would like to use ART to have a child and by 50% of those who would like to adopt or to foster a child.
LGBTQ Communities and Local Neighborhoods
LGBTQ people reported safety concerns in their own neighborhoods and while visiting LGBTQ events and businesses.
Only 46% of LGBTQ adults felt there was a lot of social acceptance for LGBTQ adults in the neighborhood where they lived.
Among LGBTQ county residents, fewer of those who were living below 200% FPL (29%) or who were people of color (42%) felt there was a lot of social acceptance in their neighborhoods compared to LGBTQ adults who had higher incomes (55%) or who were White (54%).
Almost 30% of LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County (29%) reported feeling safe none or just some of the time in their neighborhoods.
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL (42%) and LGBTQ people of color (37%) were twice as likely to not feel safe in their neighborhood any of the time or only some of the time as compared to LGBTQ adults who had higher incomes (22%) or who were White (15%).
About one-fourth of LGBTQ adults (23%) reported having been verbally harassed by strangers while attending an LGBTQ event or visiting an LGBTQ establishment in Los Angeles County. Most of these experiences (16%) had occurred within the past five years.
Due to fears of being assaulted or attacked because of their LGBTQ status, 15% of LGBTQ adults in the county had avoided LGBTQ bars, nightclubs, or events during the past year, and 6% had avoided going to other LGBTQ organizations or businesses.
Transgender and nonbinary adults were more than twice as likely as cisgender LGBQ adults to avoid LGBTQ bars or events (27% vs. 13%) and other LGBTQ organizations or businesses (14% vs. 5%) out of safety concerns.
Those living below 200% FPL were nearly twice as likely as those with higher incomes to avoid LGBTQ bars and events (20% vs. 12%) and more than twice as likely to avoid other LGBTQ organizations or businesses (10% vs. 3%).
More than one-third (38%) of LGBTQ adults of color reported having been treated unfairly or poorly as a person of color while living in Los Angeles County. Thirteen percent of these instances involved racism within LGBTQ communities.
Religious and Spiritual Communities
More than two-thirds of LGBTQ adults (69%) in Los Angeles County identified as spiritual or religious, although many are not out in their religious or spiritual communities and have experienced negative treatment in these environments.
Forty-two percent of LGBTQ adults said that religion is somewhat or very important in their lives, and more than a quarter (27%) attend religious services at least a few times a year.
LGBTQ people of color were much more likely than White LGBTQ adults to say that religion is very important in their lives (23% vs. 9%).
Nearly half of LGBTQ adults with religious and spiritual communities (48%) were not out to any of the people with whom they attend religious services or spiritual practices.
More than half of LGBTQ people of color (53%) are not out to anyone in their religious or spiritual communities, compared to one-third of White LGBTQ adults (36%).
Approximately three-fourths of cisgender bisexual men (73%) and bisexual women (75%) are also not out to anyone in these communities.
Some LGBTQ adults had avoided religious services or spiritual practices in the past year to avoid poor treatment (19%) or because of safety concerns (15%) due to their LGBTQ status.
Employment
Among adults in the workforce in Los Angeles County, unemployment is higher among LGBTQ adults (16%) than non-LGBTQ adults (11%).
Almost half (48%) of employed LGBTQ adults are not out to their supervisor, and nearly one in four (24%) are not out to any of their coworkers.
LGBTQ employees of color are more likely than White LGBTQ employees to be out to none or only some of their coworkers (58% vs. 37%).
Among cisgender LGBQ adults, three-fourths of bisexual women (73%) and bisexual men (77%) are not out to their supervisor, compared with 23% of lesbians and 30% of gay men.
Approximately one in eight LGBTQ adults reported being fired/not promoted (12%) or not hired (11%) for a job because of their sexual orientation or gender identity while living in Los Angeles County, with most of these experiences having occurred in the past five years (7% to 8%).
Transgender and nonbinary adults (24%) and LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL (20%) were more than twice as likely as cisgender LGBQ adults (9%) and those with higher incomes (7%) to have not been hired for a job because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
One in five (20%) LGBTQ employees reported having been verbally harassed at work by their supervisor, coworkers, customers, or clients, including 13% who had experienced such harassment in the past five years.
LGBTQ people of color were more than twice as likely as White LGBTQ adults to report verbal harassment by their supervisor or coworkers (23% vs.13%).
Public Accommodations, Public Spaces, and Safety
About one-third of LGBTQ adults (32%) reported experiencing verbal harassment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity from strangers on the street, including 23% who had had these experiences in the past five years.
Cisgender lesbians (42%) and gay men (45%) were three times as likely to report harassment from strangers on the street as cisgender bisexual women (15%) and bisexual men (13%).
Twelve percent of LGBTQ adults experienced verbal harassment when accessing services from businesses open to the public in Los Angeles County, including 8% whose experiences had been in the past five years.
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL were more likely than those with higher incomes to report such harassment (20% vs. 8%).
Cisgender lesbians (20%) and gay men (17%) were much more likely to report such harassment than cisgender bisexual women (1%) and men (3%).
Approximately one in five LGBTQ adults reported avoiding restaurants or stores (22%), places of entertainment (19%), or public transportation (17%) in order to avoid poor treatment based on their LGBTQ status.
Those living below 200% FPL were more than twice as likely to report that they had avoided places of entertainment or public transportation to avoid unfair treatment.
Cisgender lesbians and gay men were approximately four times as likely to avoid these locations as cisgender bisexual men and women.
In the past year, many LGBTQ adults avoided public parks or beaches (16%), restaurants or stores (14%), public transportation (14%), and places of entertainment (13%) due to concerns about being assaulted or attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Compared to cisgender LGBQ people, transgender and nonbinary adults were more likely to report that they had avoided public parks and beaches (33% vs. 13%) and public transportation (27% vs. 12%) out of safety concerns.
Among LGBTQ adults who had lived in Los Angeles County their entire lives, around 40% reported that they had been victims of personal (39%) or property crimes (42%). Of those who had been victims of both types of crimes, 72% felt that they had been targeted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Interactions With Law Enforcement
Forty-one percent of LGBTQ adults strongly or somewhat disagreed that law enforcement treats LGBTQ adults fairly, while 31% strongly or somewhat agreed.
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL (13%) were more likely than those with higher incomes (5%) to say that they had avoided calling the police in order to avoid unfair treatment.
LGBTQ adults reported experiencing verbal harassment (17%), physical harassment or assault (6%), sexual harassment or assault (6%), and being solicited for sex (3%) by law enforcement in Los Angeles County.
Transgender and nonbinary adults, LGBTQ adults of color, and those living below 200% FPL were all twice as likely to report verbal harassment by law enforcement compared to LGBQ cisgender adults (34% vs. 14%), White LGBTQ adults (20% vs. 10%), and LGBTQ people with higher household incomes (24% vs. 13%).
Among adults who had had contact with law enforcement in the prior year, 31% felt that they had not been treated respectfully or properly and said that the interactions made them less likely to contact law enforcement in the future. However, more than half (52%) were satisfied with their interactions with law enforcement.
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL were much more likely to feel that law enforcement had not acted properly in a recent interaction compared to LGBTQ adults with higher incomes (46% vs. 23%), and they were much less likely to contact law enforcement in the future as a result (46% vs. 22%).
Income and Food Insecurity
Similar to non-LGBTQ adults, one-third of LGBTQ adults (35%) in Los Angeles County were living below 200% FPL, and 13% were living in poverty (below 100% FPL).
Among LGBTQ adults, transgender adults (47%) and adults of color (42%) were more likely to be living below 200% FPL than cisgender LGBQ (33%) and White adults (21%).
One-third (33%) of LGBTQ adults described their household’s financial situation as just meeting basic expenses (24%) or as not having enough to meet basic expenses (9%).
However, nearly two-thirds (65%) of LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL described their household’s financial situation as just meeting basic expenses (45%) or as not having enough to meet basic expenses (21%).
Nearly one in three (32%) LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County lived in households that experienced food insecurity in the past year, as did more than one five (23%) non-LGBTQ adults.
More LGBTQ adults (56%) living below 200% FPL and LGBTQ people of color (42%) had experienced food insecurity than those with higher household incomes (19%) and who are White (19%).
More cisgender bisexual men (37%) and women (37%) experienced food insecurity compared to cisgender gay men (22%) and lesbians (30%).
Housing Insecurity
Due to high levels of renting among LGBTQ people in Los Angeles County (61%) compared to non-residents (46%), LGBTQ people are at elevated risk of housing insecurity.
Two-thirds of cisgender bisexual men (66%) and bisexual women (68%) are renters, compared to half of cisgender gay men (55%) and lesbians (50%). Over two-thirds (68%) of transgender and non-binary adults are renters.
More LGBTQ than non-LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County live in households that are “cost burdened” or “severely cost burdened” by housing expenses.
More than half (61%) of LGBTQ adults and 53% of non-LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County spend 30% or more of their monthly household income on housing.
One-quarter (26%) of LGBTQ adults and 21% of non-LGBTQ adults spend over 50% of their household’s total monthly income on rent or a mortgage.
More LGBTQ adults than non-LGBTQ adults live in households that were delayed or unable to pay their mortgage or rent at least once in the prior two years (19% vs. 15%).
More LGBTQ people of color live in households that had had any difficulty paying for housing compared to White LGBTQ adults (22% vs. 14%).
More than one in 10 LGBTQ adults (11%) and 6% of non-LGBTQ adults had been homeless at some time in the past five years.
More than one in 10 LGBTQ adults (12%) reported having a landlord or realtor in Los Angeles County refuse to sell or rent to them because of their LGBTQ identity, with 5% reporting such an experience in the past five years.
More cisgender lesbians (36%) and gay men (13%) reported such treatment than cisgender bisexual men (6%) and women (1%).
More than one in 10 LGBTQ adults (11%) reported experiencing verbal harassment from their landlord, other tenants, or neighbors, with 8% reporting such experiences within the past five years.
More LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL (22%) reported such harassment than those with higher incomes (6%).
Health
While LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ adults had similar self-reports on their overall health and access to health insurance, on 11 out of 16 more specific health indicators—including those related to mental health, and substance abuse—more LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County had worse outcomes than non-LGBTQ adults. Those living below 200% FPL were the mostly likely to have poor health.
Symptoms of depression were twice as common among LGBTQ adults than non-LGBTQ adults (21% vs. 10%).
Among LGBTQ adults, 30% of those living below 200% FPL had symptoms of depression, compared to 16% of those with higher incomes.
Lifetime suicide attempts were more common among LGBTQ adults than non-LGBTQ adults (13% vs. 3%).
Among LGBTQ adults, suicide attempts were reported by more: transgender and nonbinary adults than cisgender LGBQ adults (24% vs. 11%)
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL than adults with higher incomes (20% vs. 9%)
cisgender bisexual women compared to cisgender bisexual men (6%), cisgender lesbians (5%), and cisgender gay men (8%).
More LGBTQ adults had engaged in binge drinking (32%) and heavy marijuana use (15%) in the past month than non-LGBTQ adults (21% and 5%, respectively).
Among LGBTQ adults, heavy marijuana use was more common among adults living below 200% FPL than among those with higher incomes (20% vs. 12%).
While almost half of LGBTQ adults (46%) had received mental health care in the prior year, about one in four (26%) expressed an unmet need for care. While the primary barriers involved cost (75%), 31% were unable to find care supportive of LGBTQ adults.
More than a third of LGBTQ adults (37%) had experienced intimate partner violence (IPV)— twice as many as non-LGBTQ adults (18%).
Half (50%) of cisgender bisexual women reported IPV.
Almost one in 10 LGBTQ adults (9%) said they smoked regularly, compared to fewer non- LGBTQ adults (6%).
Among LGBTQ adults, smoking was more common among:
cisgender gay and bisexual men than cisgender lesbians and bisexual women (13% vs. 5%)
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL than those with higher incomes (15% vs. 6%)
While somewhat fewer LGBTQ adults than non-LGBTQ adults were overweight (BMI of 25.0–29.9) (28% v. 33%) or obese (BMI greater than 30.0) (28% vs. 30%), obesity was more common among:
cisgender lesbians than cisgender gay men (42% vs. 21%)
LGBTQ people of color than White LGBTQ adults (32% vs. 22%)
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL than those with higher household incomes (37% vs. 23%)
More LGBTQ adults than non-LGBTQ adults had difficulty accessing needed medical care (32% vs. 23%).
Among LGBTQ adults, difficulty accessing care was more common among:
LGBTQ adults of color than White LGBTQ adults (36% vs. 27%)
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL than among adults with higher incomes (43% vs. 27%)
In the past year, about one in 10 LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County (11%) did not go to health care providers for fear of unfair treatment, and 8% did not go for fear of being threatened or physically attacked because of their LGBTQ status.
Transgender and nonbinary adults (21%) were approximately twice as likely as cisgender LGBQ adults (11%) to report that they had not accessed health care in order to avoid unfair treatment.
Among LGBTQ adults who had health care providers, just over half reported being out to all of their providers (51%), and almost one in four (23%) reported not being out to any of their providers.
Among LGBTQ adults, the likelihood of not being out to any of their health care providers was higher among:
cisgender bisexual women (54%) and men (37%) than cisgender lesbians (6%) and gay men (6%)
those living below 200% FPL compared to those with higher incomes (36% vs. 17%)
transgender and nonbinary adults compared to cisgender LGBQ adults (32% vs. 23%)
adults of color compared to White adults (28% vs. 14%)
More than one in 10 LGBTQ adults (11%) reported being denied medical care or provided inferior care because of their sexual orientation or gender identity while living in Los Angeles County, including 8% who had had these experiences in the past five years.
More than one in 10 LGBTQ adults (11%) reported being verbally harassed because of their LGBTQ status while accessing health care in Los Angeles County.
LGBTQ adults living below 200% FPL (17%) were more likely to have experienced verbal harassment than those with higher incomes (8%).
Gene Dinah misses his late husband, Robert Malsberry, every day. He misses Malsberry’s cooking, his love for gardening, the way he fixed things around the house and the way he made him feel special and protected.
“He was just great,” Dinah said of Malsberry, who died in 2019. “I couldn’t have had a better partner.”
The memories of the 46 years the men had together are all around him.Malsberry is in the paintings he bought to decorate their home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He is in the medals he received for his service with the Air Force. Heis in the photos from a lifetime together.
“Oh, this is one of my favorite pictures,” Dinah said as he held a photo of himself and his husband standing in front of lush green shrubs at their home. “That’s our rock garden.”
Gene Dinah, left, and his husband, Robert Malsberry.Courtesy Gene Dinah
Picking up another photo, he said, “That’s my husband in our dining room in our house in Victoria Park with Cleo, our Persian cat.”
Robert Malsberry with Cleo, the cat he shared with Gene Dinah.Courtesy Gene Dinah
“Oh, this is a good picture,” he continued. “This is my husband when he was an Air Force lieutenant after graduating college.”
Robert Malsberry when he was an Air Force lieutenant.Courtesy Gene Dinah
They had no children, so when Malsberry was diagnosed with leukemia and later dementia, Dinah became his full-time caregiver. “I took care of him as best I could,” he said.
Malsberry died in 2019, four years after the couple got married in 2015, following that year’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court.
“My husband was very happy when we got married,” Dinah said. “I didn’t know how he was going to take it. I really didn’t, because he’d been in the closet, you know, for all those years.”
Dinah was destroyed after Malsberry died. “My whole life was him,” he said.
While taking care of his sick husband, Dinah did not think about his own elder years. Now, at 76, he is one of many LGBTQ elders who have no surviving relatives who can take care of them.
LGBTQ older adults are four times less likely to be parents than older heterosexual adults, and twice as likely to grow old single and living alone, according to SAGE, a national group that offers services and advocacy for LGBTQ adults 50 and older.
The challenges LGBTQ elders face overlap with an aging U.S. population. According to the U.S. Census, the population aged 65 or over grew to an unprecedented 55.8 million, or 16.8% of the total population, in 2020. The number of people in the U.S. that are 65 or older is projected to increase by 47% by 2050.
An older population exacerbates workforce shortages in senior living facilitiesand health care institutions, and while this affects many older Americans, LGBTQ elders face unique challenges when compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
In a report published in 2018, SAGE found LGBTQ elders are far more likely than their heterosexual peers “to have faced discrimination, social stigma and the effects of prejudice.” They are therefore, the report found, more likely “to face poverty and homelessness, and to have poor physical and mental health.”
Caregiving
Since LGBTQ people are less likely to have children, more than half (54%) of LGBTQ elders receive care from their partner and nearly a quarter (24%) receive care from a friend, according to SAGE. More than 20% of older LGBTQ adults have provided care to friends, compared to just 6% of their heterosexual counterparts.
Mitchell Zahn, a coordinator for SAGE in South Florida, said that in heterosexual family units, caregiving tends to have a vertical model, in which the child takes care of their parents.
“But in the gay community, since so many do not have a family, caregiving tends to be with friends, a more horizontal model,” Zahn said. “However, when you age, your friends tend to be older as well and have their own health needs, so our health support is failing as well because we don’t have that intergenerational aspect.”
Photographs of Gene Dinah and his husband, Robert Malsberry, throughout the years.Courtesy Gene Dinah
Dinah is a vivid example of the horizontal model of caregiving. For the four years during which Dinah was his husband’s sole caregiver, he arranged all of his medical appointments, found him the doctors he needed, took care of him through medical procedures, cooked for him, took care of the house and got him all the medical supplies he needed. After his husband died, Dinah had no one to help him with his own health care.
“I didn’t see a doctor or a dentist for four years while I was his caretaker,” he said. “When it was all over, I started going to the doctor, and I found out I had prostate cancer.”
Dinah went through six weeks of radiation treatments by himself.
Health care
Discrimination in health care and the fear of such discrimination are major factors that lead to health disparities for LGBTQ elders, according to research. In its 2018 report, for example, SAGE found approximately 20% of LGBTQ people avoid medical care out of fear of discrimination.
Zahn, the SAGE coordinator, said that because many LGBTQ elders grew up in a time when discrimination was more widespread and intense, they tend to fear government and health care institutions.
“People have experienced housing evictions, not having their partners recognized in health care institutions,” Zahn said. “So as a result, many are closeted when seeking services through traditional institutions.”
Zahn said LGBTQ elders may feel judged for who they are, so they may not share everything about their medical history with their doctors, which could lead to misdiagnosis and overall poor health outcomes.
The challenges of aging are even greater for transgender elders and even more for trans immigrants and trans people of color.
More than 20% of transgender people report that a doctor or other health care provider used harsh or abusive language while treating them, according to SAGE, while 50% of trans people reported having to teach medical providers about transgender care.
Morgan Mayfaire, 65, is the executive director of TransSOCIAL, an organization that aims to create a more inclusive community for transgender people. As a trans man, he said, he has experienced prejudice when visiting medical providers.
“When they look at your records, they’re going to see in your list of medications that you’re either taking estradiol or you’re taking testosterone,” Mayfaire said. “The question then is, ‘Why?’ The minute you tell them that it’s because you’re trans, you can see the bias in their face.”
Mayfaire helps train a variety of institutions, including those focused on health care, about best practices when caring for older trans people.He said very few medical professionals have gone through sensitivity training, and those that have, typically don’t train their new hires.
Florida is one of the states that has recently passed legislation seeking to restrict transgender rights, including a law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis that made it harder for transgenders adults to access gender-affirming care. That law is now on hold after a federal district court ruled it unconstitutional, but Mayfaire said the effects are palpable.
“A lot of the providers that we had before have either left the state and moved somewhere else, or are reluctant to reopen those services,” Mayfaire said.
Andrea Montanez, a trans field organizer in Orlando with the National LGBTQ Task Force, said, “It’s scary to be an elder as a transgender person, to be honest.”
Montanez, 58, said a doctor who had given her great treatment for years suddenly turned curt, cold and distant after she transitioned.
She also suspects her apartment lease was not renewed because she told her landlord she had transitioned.
Housing
Mayfaire said housing is another big obstacle for LGBTQ elders.
Half the LGBTQ population live in states with no laws prohibiting housing discrimination against them, and 48% of LGBTQ couples experience adverse treatment when seeking senior housing, according to SAGE.
“There are very few retirement communities for LGBTQ folks to begin with,” Mayfaire said. He added that even at retirement communities that are accepting of gays and lesbians, “it’s very rare” that they accept trans people.
He said he has heard of LGBTQ elders who end up having to go back into the closet in order to be accepted in some retirement communities.
“It’s a little bit more difficult when you’re trans and you’ve transitioned,” Mayfaire said. “How do you backtrack on that and how do you deal with that emotionally and mentally?”
Isolation
Nearly 60% of LGBTQ older adults report feeling a lack of companionship and over 50% reported feeling isolated from others, according to SAGE.
That isolation can really impact the mental health of LGBTQ elders, many of whom faced the brunt of discrimination and were the pioneers of the movement for LGBTQ rights.
To combat that loneliness, SAGE matches elders with “friendly visitors”: volunteers who donate their time to accompany an LGBTQ elder.
Volunteers sometimes share a meal with an elder, tell stories, watch movies, play board games or just simply talk. Some volunteers check in with their elders with a simple text message or a call.
“I’ve seen some real magic happen between volunteers and participants, some incredible relationships that have formed,” Zahn said.
Craig Rosenblatt is one of SAGE’s volunteers. Sitting next to Dinah on a recent Friday afternoon, Rosenblatt said he volunteers in part to pay homage to and learn from his LGBTQ elders.
“You’ve had experiences that I have not had with bigotry. Where there were a lot of things that I was able to do that you were not able to do, and there’s a lot of things that I was not able to do that people can do today,” Rosenblatt told Dinah.
After his husband died, Dinah said, he was so consumed by grief that he couldn’t manage to put up his Christmas tree for several holiday seasons.
“I just didn’t feel like doing anything for the holidays,” he said. “Grief is a funny thing. It saps your energy.”
Last Christmas, however, that changed, thanks to another SAGE volunteer.
“He got our Christmas tree out, got it working and plugged it in and everything, and that meant everything to me,” Dinah recalled. “The passage of time is a good thing. I know I feel much better now than I did in the beginning.”
Using data from the 2021 National Survey on Sexual and Gender Diversity in Mexico, this report examines data about sociodemographic characteristics, stressors, sexuality, health care, and mental health experiences of nonbinary people in Mexico. Nonbinary people are those living their gender identity outside the traditional binary gender structure totally or partially. Available in English and Spanish, this report aims to fill existing data gaps on nonbinary people and to address requests from civil society and government officials to improve data collection, develop mechanisms to ensure gender markers align across identity documents, and inform anti-discrimination campaigns about nonbinary people in Mexico.
Key Findings
An estimated 340,620 people in Mexico identify as nonbinary.
More than half (67.5%) of nonbinary people are under 24 years old, and the majority (80.8%) are single.
During their childhood, nonbinary individuals often felt different due to their tastes or interests (45.5%) or their mannerisms and behavior (41.5%).
During their childhood, half of nonbinary people (50.3%) were insulted, mocked, or told offensive things, and more than a third (38.7%) were rejected or excluded from social activities.
Most people (86.3%) knew that they were nonbinary before they were 17 years old.
Nonbinary people face multiple stressors around their sexual orientation and gender identity. For example, one in 10 (10.8%) nonbinary people were forced to undergo conversion therapy due to their sexual orientation, and almost one in 10 (9%) due to their gender identity or expression.
The majority of nonbinary people report experiencing multiple mental health problems during the past year, including stress (74%), insomnia (63.7%), anxiety (65.9%), and changes in eating behaviors or weight (64.5%).
Almost half (42.5%) of nonbinary people had suicidal thoughts in their lifetime, and a quarter (25.8%) had attempted suicide.
Director/producer Fia Perera‘s Perera Pictures is proud to announce the North American video-on-demand (VOD) release of “Paul & Trisha: The Art of Fluidity” (Gravitas Ventures) on July 9, 2024. This colorful, heartwarming, and truly inspirational documentary, which
explores the lives of two renowned British artists who exist in one gender-fluid body: Paul Whitehead and Trisha Van Cleef, is Perera’s directorial debut, and will stream in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Pre-orders are available now on iTunes/Apple TV.
“A brilliant, beautiful, sensitive documentary” (Broadway to Vegas), “Paul & Trisha: The Art of Fluidity” has received rave reviews, with critics focusing on how Perera “reveals the challenges and joyful moment which both souls celebrate and endure…with great dignity and purpose” (Film Threat), while others praise the film’s style, exclaiming “the artwork alone is worth the price of admission, but the story is amazing and its presentation is brilliant” (Splash Magazine).
“As a filmmaker and activist, my passion is spotlighting and elevating individuals like Paul and Trisha, who navigate their gender fluidity and duality with great freedom”, said Perera. “My mission with this film is to help inspire other people who are struggling to be their true selves to take the leap!”
“Paul & Trisha: The Art of Fluidity” focuses on Paul Whitehead, a painter, graphic designer, writer, and musician who worked as an art director for Time Out and John Lennon; founded the Eyes and Ears Foundation and its Artboard Festival, which allowed artists to showcase their work on billboards; and made album covers for music icons like Genesis, Credence Clearwater Revival, Van der Graaf Generator, and Peter Hammill.
Whitehead began exploring his gender identity through cross-dressing during the 1960s, leading to the emergence of the converged artist Trisha Van Cleef in 2004. The film delves into the brutal challenges and beautiful victories that Paul and Trisha have faced—together and individually—in the mercurial and competitive art world while unapologetically navigating the uncharted waters of gender identity and artistic expression, breaking down perilous stigmas along the way.
“Paul & Trisha: The Art of Fluidity” has held a successful festival run with screenings at Cinequest Film Festival, Santa Fe Film Festival Ojai Film Festival, and New Filmmakers LA Docuslate Festival.
Perera Pictures & Fisky Enterprises present “Paul & Trisha: The Art of Fluidity.” Featuring Paul Whitehead & Trisha Van Cleef, the film is written, directed and produced by Fia Perera, with Adam Fisk serving as an executive producer, with cinematography and editing by William Gilmore.
Police declared a “mass arrest situation” in Chicago, Illinois on Sunday night following the city’s annual Pride parade.
The arrests began at 1:23 a.m. in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago, with police ordering a mass arrest, but no other information was given. The Chicago police department has not announced how many people were arrested during or after the parade.
CWB Chicago reported widespread fights and disruption throughout Boystown, home to one of the largest LGBTQ+ communities in the Midwest. The chaos continued into Monday morning, with videos of people clashing with the police being posted on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
Videos show police throwing members of the crowd to the ground, shoving people, and people running away from the scene.
Police also said “of the known arrests, at least two people were taken into custody for gun possession.”
The police blocked off an area of West Belmont which usually hosts all-night Pride after parties. Rather than people dancing and socializing, the street was “bumper to bumper” with Chicago police vehicles. Residential side streets, however, were filled with people celebrating the last night of Pride.
Chicago’s Pride Parade and its afterparty have led to between 46 and 52 arrests each year between 2013 and 2015, according to CWB Chicago records. There were 25 arrests last year, including 21 adults and four juveniles.
“The Pride Parade yesterday was a safe and wonderful celebration of our diverse LGBTQ+ community, and it was such a joy to see so many people come out to show their support in the fight for equality,” Bennett said. “Following the Parade’s conclusion, I was extremely disappointed to see disruptive actions in our neighborhood into the early morning hours. I am grateful to the Chicago Police Department for their quick and decisive action to limit any damage and keep people safe, and to the Streets and Sanitation Department for their great work to clean our neighborhood.”
“I look forward to meeting with city departments and stakeholders in the coming days to discuss how we can continue to improve the Parade for participants, attendees and neighbors, and prevent these disturbing actions from occurring in the future,” Lawson said.
In 2019, Elizabeth Erion wished that her trans daughter had an opportunity to create community with other trans kids in the area.
“I knew there were a few sleep-away camps for gender-expansive youth, but they were too far away, and financially out of reach for our family,” Erion said.
So she worked with another parent of a trans teen and formed Camp Free2Be. It started as a weeklong camp with eight campers and six junior counselors. This year, the camp will serve more than 60 campers.
Erion said that queer students may have limited opportunities to meet students who are like them, which makes the work Camp Free2Be does so important. With the recent spike in anti-LGBTQ legislation around the country, a recent survey revealed that nearly half of trans youth feel unsafe in school.
“Camps like ours offer trans and nonbinary youth a space where it’s completely safe to be their authentic selves; to wear clothes they might not normally feel able to wear; to try out a new name or pronouns; to meet other kids who know exactly what it’s like to be gender diverse.”
To continue to build queer youth community, the camp is led by junior counselors from 15-18, who are also trans or non-binary. Applications are still being accepted with a June 23 deadline. Counselors who participate in both weeks of the camp will receive a $150 stipend for their participation.
“[Junior counselors] serve as role models for our younger campers, while also making friends and developing leadership skills.”
This day camp is located in Arlington, in walking distance from the Metro. Campers will engage in STEM, arts and crafts, outdoor games, theater, and more at the camp. Once a day, the entire camp gathers for a lesson on LGBTQ history.
“These are lessons our youth probably won’t be given in school, and they are important in showing them that they are part of a larger community with a rich history.”
For Erion, the most rewarding parts of the camp are the unscheduled and spontaneous conversations she overhears from campers.
“While doing arts and crafts or playing board games, they will casually talk about issues unique to growing up trans or nonbinary. They are learning from each other and finding out that they have shared experiences.” she said.
One of the best parts of the camp is that it will cost parents nothing. Camp Free2Be is in partnership with SMYAL to make the camp free for campers and junior counselors.
This year, camp will run through two back-to-back weeks, July 15-19 and July 22-26. Registration closes June 23 and can be found at campfree2be.org. If you have already planned your summer, be on the lookout in January 2025 for summer 2025 registration.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of legal marriage for same-sex couples in the United States, starting with Massachusetts on May 17, 2004. In recognition of this 20th anniversary, this report provides a portrait of married same-sex couples based on survey responses from 484 LGBTQ+ Americans. These couples come from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. They are diverse racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically. On average, they have been together for over 16 years and married for over nine years. Over 60% were married after the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that brought marriage equality to all 50 states. Over 30% of these couples have children, and 25% want children in the future.
This report focuses on these couples’ reasons for getting married, how marriage has impacted their lives, and the ways they have come to rely upon their spouse and their spouse’s family for support. It also addresses the experiences that some of them have had with discrimination, the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on them, and their concerns that Obergefell might be overturned.
Overall, these couples appreciate the ways that marriage has strengthened their relationships with their partners, provided security for their children, and provided legal protections, financial security, and greater acceptance by family, friends, and the broader community. They are also worried about the future of marriage equality and the increasingly hostile climate for LGBTQ+ people in many parts of the country—so much so that some are considering moving to another state.
In sum, two decades after the first state in the United States permitted same-sex couples to marry, they report that marriage equality has had a profound positive impact on their lives but are concerned about the future security of their families.
Key Findings
Why same-sex couples got married
When asked why they got married, the vast majority of same-sex couples said love (93.0%), companionship (74.0%), and legal protections (75.0%).
Almost two-thirds said they married for the symbolic value and meaning of marriage (63.8%), and almost half said they married for increased financial security (49.4%).
Couples in longer relationships before marrying were more likely to cite legal and financial reasons for marrying.
Some also married to protect their current (3.5%) or future children (12.4%).
When asked about the positive impacts of marriage in general, members of same-sex couples also strongly endorsed: marriage as a symbol of love and commitment (89.3%), the ability to access rights and benefits (76.0%), including health insurance (66.7%), financial benefits more generally (74.4%), and societal (62.2%) and family (66.7%) recognition and acceptance.
How marriage has changed same-sex couples’ lives
Relationship and life satisfaction. When asked how marriage changed their lives, 83.1% of participants reported positive changes in their sense of safety and security, almost three-fourths (74.6%) reported positive changes in life satisfaction, and almost two-thirds (61.0%) reported becoming closer to their partner.
Stability and security in their relationship. About two-thirds (66.9%) of participants said that marriage provided more stability to their relationships, including legal protections, financial stability, mutual support, long-term planning, and a stronger sense of security and commitment in the relationship.
Shared life planning. Many couples reported that marriage had profoundly changed how they made life plans. Where to live. Over 60% of participants (61.4%) affirmed that marriage affected their life planning in terms of making decisions about moving and where to live, including moving for their partner’s job or to be near their partner’s family.
Work and income. Over 60% of participants (61.0%) felt that marriage affected their life planning in terms of working and earning income. Many said that marriage enabled partners to designate one to work at a steady job so the other could take career risks, pursue satisfying but less lucrative work, go back to school, or stay home with children.
Financial planning. Almost 60% (59.3%) said marriage affected their financial planning in terms of saving, investing, and planning for retirement, the ability to care for each other in case of illness, buy a house, and afford to have children.
Workplace benefits. Over half (51.9%) of married same-sex couples said that marriage equality provided them access to workplace health insurance benefits previously unavailable to them.
Parenting. Almost one in five (19.8%) reported that marriage affected their plans about whether or when to have or adopt children and how many children to have. For many, marriage was a “prerequisite” to becoming parents.
Stability and security for children. Of those who had children, almost 60% (58.1%) reported that marriage provided more stability or security for their children, including by providing legal protections, offering a greater sense of legitimacy for their children, and conveying a sense of stability in their family to their children.
Caretaking. Over one-fourth of participants reported they were living with a disability, and over one-fourth reported that their partner had a disability. Just one partner had a disability in 112 couples (23.1%), and both partners had a disability in 73 couples (15.1%). Regarding caregiving, 14.5% of respondents reported that they were a caregiver for their partner, and 12.4% reported that their partner was a caregiver for them. More specifically, in approximately one out of six couples, one or both partners were caregivers: one partner was a caregiver in 50 couples (10.3%), and both partners cared for each other in 28 couples (5.8%).
Reliance and Mutual Support
Many of the ways that marriage has impacted couples are related to how partners within a marriage support and depend on one another. For many same-sex couples, this mutual reliance did not start with their wedding but long before and extended not only to their partners but their in-laws.
Reliance prior to marriage
Most (93.4%) participants lived with their spouses before getting married, with 69.7% seeing living together as a step towards marriage. Participants lived with their partners for an average of 3.83 years before getting married.
Almost three-quarters (70.9%) were engaged to their partners before they got married. They were engaged to their spouses for an average of 2.3 years. Among those who were engaged, almost all (96.2%) saw being engaged as a step towards marriage.
Some forms of mutual support were high at each stage in these couples’ relationships. For example, while they were living together, engaged, and married, approximately one in five of these couples helped pay for each other’s education costs; provided caregiving to the other when they needed help due to a health condition or aging; or moved when the other got a job in a different location. In all three stages of these relationships, over 60% shared savings goals, like buying a car and a house.
Some forms of mutual support dramatically increased when couples got married. For example, married same-sex couples were more likely to buy a house together (47.1%) and have a shared bank account (68.2%) than when they were living together or engaged.
Compared to when they were living together or engaged, married same-sex couples were more likely to have or adopt children (11.6%), share child-raising responsibilities (18.0%), and decide to have one partner not work to devote more time to childcare (11.6%).
Reliance on family and in-laws
In addition to members of the couple relying upon one other, marriage also meant that the couple had two families—or sets of in-laws—that they could rely upon.
Over 40% (40.9%) of participants and their partners relied on each other’s families of origin in times of crisis, such as to help meet financial or health care needs
For example, of couples with the following needs, over three-fourths (76.1%) reported that their families had helped out during a health crisis, 60.5% had relied upon their families for financial support, 31.3% had relied on their families for occasional help with childcare, and 14.5% had relied on their families for regular help with childcare.
Of those who had a wedding (77.3%), 35.8% said their family helped pay for the wedding, and 29.4% said their partner’s family helped pay for the wedding.
Discrimination
Participants reported experiences of discrimination both when planning their weddings and as married couples.
10.7% of those who had a wedding said they experienced discrimination while planning their wedding, with another 7.2% indicating that they were unsure of whether they experienced discrimination. Types of discrimination included discrimination by participants’ churches or synagogues, city officials, and wedding vendors.
Some participants said they believed they avoided discrimination because they only sought out vendors and officiants known for being LGBTQ+ friendly, lived in an LGBTQ+ friendly area, or did not disclose that they were having a same-sex wedding to certain vendors.
In response to an open-ended question, several participants indicated concern about the increased visibility that marriage had brought to their relationship, which made them more vulnerable to discrimination.
Impact of Obergefell v. Hodges decision
In 2015, the Supreme Court extended marriage equality to all fifty states through its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Almost all participants indicated that the Obergefell decision (94.2%) made a difference to them. In fact, most participants were married post-Obergefell (62.8%), even though their relationships started before 2015.
Approximately three-fourths of those in married same-sex couples reported that what made a difference to them was full legal recognition in terms of rights and responsibilities (79.5%), that marriage would be recognized in all 50 states (74.6%), and having marriage equality validated as a constitutional right (72.5%).
For over a third (34.7%), Obergefell made a very practical difference: they lived in one of the states that didn’t have marriage quality until the case was decided.
Concerns about the future of Obergefell
Almost 80% (79.3%) of married same-sex couples said they were very (40.9%) or somewhat (38.4%) concerned about the Obergefell decision being overturned.
Being trans or having a trans partner, being older, and having less education were associated with being concerned about the future of Obergefell.
About one-fourth said they had pursued various actions out of concern that marriage equality might be challenged. Some sped up their timeline for marriage to make sure it would still be available, and others sought second-parent adoptions to ensure that their legal relationship to their children is protected. Others sped up their timeline for having children to ensure both parents had a legal relationship with their child.
Concerns about the future of marriage equality, as well as the current anti-LGBTQ+ climate in many states, are prompting many couples to consider moving to another state or another country.
Asked about whether they currently wanted to move out of state, over one-quarter (29.0%) indicated that they did.
Considering just those participants who indicated that they very much or somewhat wanted to move, their top three reasons for wanting to move were related to the socio-political climate (52.9%), concerns about anti-LGBTQ+ laws (48.6%), and fears about losing rights as an LGBTQ+ person
