James Hormel, the first openly gay U.S. ambassador and a philanthropist who funded organizations to fight AIDS and promote human rights, has died. He was 88.
Hormel died Friday at a San Francisco hospital with his husband, Michael, at his side and while listening to his favorite Beethoven concerto, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, praised Hormel as a civil rights pioneer who lived “an extraordinary life.”
“I will miss his kind heart and generous spirit. It’s those qualities that made him such an inspirational figure and beloved part of our city,” she said.
In 1997, then-President Bill Clinton nominated Hormel to become U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. Conservative Senate Republicans blocked the nomination. But two years later, Clinton used executive privilege to appoint him during the Congressional recess.
“The process was very long and strenuous, arduous, insulting, full of misleading statements, full of lies, full of deceit, full of antagonism,” Hormel said during a West Hollywood, California, bookshop visit in 2012 to promote his memoir, “Fit to Serve.”
He never received confirmation through a Senate floor vote but “ultimately a great deal was achieved,” he told the audience. “Ultimately, regulations were changed in the State Department. Ultimately, other openly gay individuals were appointed without the rancor that went into my case.”
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, who is openly gay, has said that as a teenager he was inspired by Hormel’s confirmation fight.
“I can remember watching the news,” he said after his nomination by President Joe Biden. “And I learned something about some of the limits that exist in this country when it comes to who is allowed to belong. But just as important, I saw how those limits could be challenged.”
Hormel held the ambassadorship from June 1999 through 2000.
Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said they were deeply saddened by Hormel’s death.
“Jim devoted his life to advancing the rights and dignity of all people, and in his trailblazing service in the diplomatic corps, he represented the United States with honor and brought us closer to living out the meaning of a more perfect union,” the Clintons said in a statement.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who officiated at Hormel’s wedding to his husband, said Hormel “made it his mission to fight for dignity and equality for all” and noted his philanthropic contributions to health, artistic and educational organizations.
“When the AIDS epidemic descended upon San Francisco, he called on our conscience and rallied the city to help our neighbors suffering from the ferocious disease,” Pelosi said in a statement. “His work served as a model for national policy to defeat HIV/AIDS and improve the lives of all affected.”
Hormel was an heir to the Hormel Foods fortune. Born in Austin, Minnesota, Hormel married his college sweetheart, Alice McElroy Parker, and had five children before divorcing in 1965. He moved to San Francisco in 1977.
He was a former dean of students at the University of Chicago law school, where he received a degree.
Hormel co-founded the Human Rights Campaign and helped fund many activities geared to arts, education and human rights, including a gay and lesbian center at the San Francisco Public Library; the National AIDS Memorial Grove; the American Foundation for AIDS Research; and the American Conservatory Theater.
In addition to his husband, Hormel is survived by five children, 14 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.
Two newlywed women were found fatally shot at their southeastern Utah campsite, officials said, days after telling friends they were worried about a “creepy guy” who had been lurking nearby.
The bodies of Crystal Michelle Turner, 38, and wife Kylen Carrol Schulte, 24, were discovered Wednesday off La Sal Loop Road in Moab, Utah, about 260 miles southeast of Salt Lake City, according to a statement from the Grand County sheriff.
Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner.Courtesy Bridget Calvert
“At this time the Grand County Sheriff’s Office is conducting an on-going homicide investigation,” the statement said. “We are currently following up with any and all leads that come to our attention during this investigation and will continue to be available to people who come forward with information. The Grand County Sheriff’s Office believes there is no current danger to the public in the Grand County area.”
The statement did not elaborate on why “there is no current danger to the public,” and a sheriff’s department representative could not be immediately reached for comment Monday.
Turner and Schulte lived a bohemian lifestyle, moving to various campsites, Schulte’s aunt, Bridget Calvert, told NBC News on Monday.
Friends and co-workers started worrying about them when Turner missed work and Schulte was a no-show at her job.
Days before going missing, Turner and Schulte met friends at a local bar and told them they were worried about someone camping nearby.
Kylen Schulte.Courtesy Bridget Calvert
“They said they needed to move their campsite because of some creepy guy at their campsite,” Calvert said. “These are outdoors girls, and they’re independent and confident. And for somebody to make them feel uncomfortable, it had to be a very valid discomfort.”
The couple, married just in April, enjoyed a carefree lifestyle moving around in their converted van.
“That’s how they lived. They enjoyed life and didn’t worry about material things,” Calvert said. “There’s no clear motive. The entire community loved them. They’re amazing people.”
Woody’s Tavern said Turner and Schulte were at that bar the weekend before their bodies were discovered and has turned over surveillance video to law enforcement.
“At no time were they approached by anyone except my staff and the entire time they were relaxed and enjoying their time with their friends and each other,” according to a statement from the tavern on Sunday. “These two women were very much in love with each other and their focus and attention were always on each other.”
Chinese tech giant Tencent’s WeChat social media platform has deleted dozens of LGBTQ accounts run by university students, saying some had broken rules on information on the internet, sparking fear of a crackdown on gay content online.
Members of several LGBTQ groups told Reuters that access to their accounts was blocked late on Tuesday and they later discovered that all of their content had been deleted.
“Many of us suffered at the same time,” said the account manager of one group who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.
“They censored us without any warning. All of us have been wiped out.”
Attempts by Reuters to access some accounts were met with a notice from WeChat saying the groups “had violated regulations on the management of accounts offering public information service on the Chinese internet.”
Other accounts did not show up in search results.
WeChat did not immediately respond to emailed questions.
Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in China until 2001, when it became legal. However, this year, a court upheld a university’s description of homosexuality as a “psychological disorder.”
The LGBTQ community has repeatedly found itself falling foul of censors. The Cyberspace Administration of China recently pledged to clean up the internet to protect minors and crack down on social media groups deemed a “bad influence.”
“Authorities have been tightening the space available for LGBT advocacy and civil society generally. This is another turning of the screw,” said Darius Longarino, a senior fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai’s China Center, who focuses on LGBTQ rights and gender equality.
The loyalty of LGBTQ university groups to the government and Communist Party was discussed in meeting in May between student groups and university representatives of the Communist Youth League — a department in charge of student affairs run by the Chinese Communist Party, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter.
The sources declined to be identified or say at which universities the meetings took place but said LGBTQ student groups were asked if they were anti-Party or anti-China, and whether any of their funds had originated from abroad.
“We explained that our LGBT education work was within campus only,” one university student told Reuters. “After our meeting in May we were dismantled.”
LGBTQ student groups traditionally do not get the support of university authorities in their work to raise awareness of the community, even though they are not banned outright.
Last September, Marie Pinkney beat incumbent Delaware state Sen. David McBride in the Democratic primary by a solid margin, before going on to a decisive victory in the general election. Upon winning, Pinkney became not only the first openly queer woman to be elected to the Delaware Senate but one of dozens of LGBTQ female candidates who won their elections in the last cycle.
Pinkney, a social worker, said she was inspired to run because of her work with victims of gun violence and a lack of political will to pass effective gun control legislation.
“I didn’t know if I could actually win,” Pinkney said, “but then I looked at who my state senator was, and I realized he was a serious impediment to gun violence legislation passing or even getting to the floor. That was enough for me.”
Delaware State Sen. Marie Pinkney.via Marie Pinkney
As a complete newcomer to politics challenging one of the longest-serving lawmakers in Delaware history, Pinkney’s victory came as a surprise to observers. However, a new report from the LGBTQ Victory Institute, an organization that supports LGBTQ elected officials and political hopefuls, found that the odds aren’t good for those betting against queer female candidates.
A review of the win and loss records of all 1,088 candidates endorsed by the LGBTQ Victory Fund (the political action committee associated with the Victory Institute) from 2016 to 2020 found that queer cisgender women — including lesbian, bisexual and other nonheterosexual women — won 69 percent of the time, compared to 59 percent for queer cisgender men endorsed by the political action committee.
Victory Fund does not track candidates it does not endorse, but its analysis of the 2020 LGBTQ candidates (both endorsed and unendorsed) suggests its candidates are representative of the overall LGBTQ candidate population in terms of race, sexual orientation and gender identification.
Though they are more successful at the ballot box, queer cisgender female candidates were outnumbered by their male counterparts every year covered by the Victory Institute’s report. Queer cisgender women accounted for just 35 percent of Victory Fund-endorsed candidates since 2016, whereas cisgender male candidates accounted for 59 percent.
This means that even if lesbian, bisexual and other nonheterosexual cisgender women started to run at the same rate as their male counterparts, they would not reach electoral parity with queer cisgender men until 2037, the report stated.
“LGBTQ women face unique barriers to running for office — the same sexist campaign tactics and misperceptions of their own qualifications as other women, combined with anti-LGBTQ bias — yet overcoming those obstacles makes them strong contenders by the time they run,” Annise Parker, president and CEO of the Victory Institute and former mayor of Houston, told NBC News. “LGBTQ women candidates tend to wait to run for positions they are qualified — and often overqualified — to hold and perhaps don’t trigger the same negative stereotypes directed at LGBTQ men.”
“Their experiences as women and as LGBTQ people often make them better politicians, portraying an authenticity and sensibility that resonates with voters,” Parker continued. “LGBTQ women make fantastic candidates, and when we run, we win. But we will not achieve representation equitable to LGBTQ men until we start running in much higher numbers.”
Among all female candidates, existing research suggests women and men win elections at approximately the same rate and their representational deficit has more to do with barriers to seeking office in the first place. However, endorsements by groups like EMILY’s List and E-Pac (and Victory Fund) reportedly make a large difference in their likelihood of success.
Transgender female candidates were also more likely to succeed than their transmasculine counterparts, winning 54 percent of the time, compared to trans men’s 18 percent success rate, according to the Victory Institute’s report. Nonbinary and gender-nonconforming candidates performed even better, winning 64 percent of the time. But the number of transgender and nonbinary candidates is relatively small. Only 39 of the more than 1,000 candidates tracked by the Victory Institute were transgender women, and only 11 were transgender men. There were also only 11 nonbinary or gender-nonconforming candidates over the five-year period. That said, the 2020 election cycle saw the most trans, nonbinary and gender-nonconforming candidates.
Despite their electoral advantage, queer cisgender women are only 37 percent of LGBTQ elected officials, and transgender women are only 4 percent, according to the Victory Institute. Only 2 percent of LGBTQ elected officials are nonbinary or gender-nonconforming, and approximately 0.5 percent are transgender men. Even queer cisgender men, who make up 56 percent of LGBTQ elected officials, are severely underrepresented when compared to all elected officials.
LGBTQ elected officials represent approximately 0.19 percent of all elected officials nationwide, according to a previous Victory Institute report. To achieve proportionate representation of the United States’ estimated 18 million LGBTQ adults (roughly 5.6 percent of the adult population, according to the most recent Gallup poll), Americans would need to elect 28,128 more LGBTQ people to office — a significant jump from the current total of 974.
As to why she thinks LGBTQ women perform relatively well at the ballot box, Pinkney said LGBTQ people, along with other marginalized groups, generally understand the importance of maintaining a high level of preparedness and taking every opportunity to succeed.
“We don’t have the room for error. We don’t have the room to mess up and make those mistakes,” she said. “It comes off as excellence, but for most marginalized communities, it just feels like everyday operation.”
A New Jersey appeal court has upheld a massive $3.5 million fine against a conversion therapy practice, which was shut down after former patients alleged widespread abuse.
On Tuesday (6 July), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey upheld a previous judgement against Jewish Institute for Global Awareness (JIFGA) – formerly known as Jews Offering New Alternatives (JONAH). JONAH was a nonprofit that claimed to be able to cure patients of same-sex attractions.
Former clients and practitioners have been locked in a heated legal battle for years. The Southern Poverty Law Center, who brought the initial lawsuit on behalf of several former JONAH clients and their families, announced the conversion therapy provider had lost its latest appeal.
As such, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim millions in attorney’s fees from the original lawsuit because JONAH did not shut its doors and stop promoting conversion therapy.
Scott McCoy, SPLC’s interim deputy legal director of LGBTQ rights and special litigation, said: “This case was always about protecting vulnerable people and families against the purveyors of fraudulent, harmful and ineffective so-called gay-to-straight conversion therapy.”
He added that conversion therapy is “fraudulent” because it’s “based on the lie that LGBTQ people can and should be fixed”. McCoy then vowed SPLC and “other allies” will not stop “until we eradicate these dangerous practices in New Jersey” and across the US.
n 2015, the New Jersey Superior Court found that JONAH had violated the state’s consumer fraud law and engaged in “unconscionable commercial practices”. The court also ordered the conversion therapy provider to permanently shut down and dissolve its organisation, according to reports by The Guardian.
The Guardianreported four former clients of JONAH alleged that organisers had engaged in a range of horrific behaviours and so-called therapeutic techniques. The clients claimed that therapy participants were instructed to remove all their clothing in group sessions and beat an effigy of their mothers with a tennis racket.
They also assorted clients were called homophobic slurs during mock gym classes and other sessions, according to The Guardian.
If it did not cease operation, the court ruled JONAH would have to pay $3.5 million to the plaintiffs.
But a couple of years later, in 2019, the same court found JONAH had violated the legal ruling by continuing to operate under a new name, JIFGA. As such, the Superior Court ordered the conversion therapy provider to pay up to $3.5 million, according to NBC News.
JONAH appealed against the ruling, but the appealed court just ruled against them again.
But Michael Laffey, who represented JONAH and its owners, said the latest ruling contained “clear factual errors”, according to Law.com. He added his clients are “considering their options”.
Conversion therapy has been denounced by several leading medical groups
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) said in 2018 that it strongly opposes conversion therapy. It reaffirmed its 1998 statement that the leading professional group “opposes any psychiatric treatment” that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder” or based on the assumption the individual “should change his or her homosexual orientation”.
LGBT+ supporters hold placards demonstration against the use of conversion therapy outside UK Cabinet office. (Photo by May James/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Earlier this year, the APA also adopted a resolution rebuking conversion therapy for trans people. It added that conversion therapy only served to promote “stigma and discrimination against transgender and gender diverse people”.
In 2020, a United Nations (UN) expert called for a global ban on conversion therapy, saying the practice is “inherently degrading and discriminatory” toward LGBT+ people. Earlier this year, the UN also urged the UK governmentto ban the discredited practice and said conversion therapy has “haunting consequences” for LGBT+ individuals.
Karen Holden, LGBT+ lawyer and founder of A City Law Firm, writes for PinkNews about the legal leaps and bounds the UK has made in the last three decades.
It has been almost 54 years since the decriminalisation of homosexualitystarted, sparking the decades-long fight for LGBT+ equality under British law.
t all kicked off on 21 July 1967 with the Sexual Offences Act (the law that started to recognise LGBT+ rights). Since this monumental move, we have made some phenomenal steps forward.
In light of this upcoming anniversary, let’s celebrate some of the most game-changing laws that have transformed the lives of the community to date.
LGBT+ Brits have the right not to be discriminated
The 1998 Human Rights Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation in Britain, allowed for fundamental human rights – the right to be treated equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.
t, crucially, this includes the right not the be discriminated against for sexual orientation.
It was later used to also advance the rights of LGBT+ individuals for legal protection in a relationship.
Same-sex couples can legally adopt
Paving the way for queer couples to start a family, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 meant that for the first time same-sex couples were legally able to adopt.
This also allowed many the right to be considered not just as a person who helped care for their partner’s child but as their actual legal parent too.
The law that opened the door for civil partnerships
In what was a stepping stone towards marriage quality and a seismic leap in LGBT+ rights in Britain, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 marked a significant change in the legal standing for couples.
Trans people can legally change their gender for the first time
Transgender people protesting delays to reforming the Gender Recognition Act on 04 July, 2020 in London, England. The government announced in September it would not be reforming it, despite overwhelming public support. (WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The 2004 Gender Recognition Act was the upshot of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in favour of trans woman Christine Goodwin, who was denied the right to marry in the UK.
It created for the first time a mechanism that allows trans people to be legally recognised by something other than their assigned gender at birth – this includes having the correct gender marker listed on their birth certificate.
For the first time, queer families could use surrogacy to start a family
Although surrogacy was permitted before, the parental order process, which makes the intended parent or parents the legal parents rather than the surrogate, was not available for same-sex male couples.
But the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 rectified this and even introduced the ability for same-sex female couples to be both named on the birth certificate as the legal parents of a child after using a known donor.
A single act that ensured stronger protections for all LGBT+ people
The landmark Equality Act 2010 added gender reassignment as a ‘protected characteristic’ and offered a vital tool to fight and promote protection against LGBT+ harassment, unfavourable treatment and discrimination.
Caselaw continued to evolve after this focal act against discrimination, perceived sexual orientation and those diagnosed with HIV and AIDS.
It was a drastic move to bridge the gap of there being separate laws to instead promote genuine equality for the LGBT+ community and many other minority groups collectively.
After rocky journey, marriage equality finally becomes reality
Peter McGraith and David Cabreza became the first same-sex couple to marry after the practice was legalised in England and Wales. (Andrea Baldo/LightRocket via Getty)
The road to marriage equality in Britain was a years-long uphill climb for tireless activists but by 2013, the first same-sex couple to legally wed in England became a reality.
As well as equalising marriage in name, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act allowed same-sex couples to marry in both civil and religious ceremonies, where the religious organisation has ‘opted in’ to conduct such ceremonies and the minister of religion agrees.
Thousands of queer men pardoned in law named after Alan Turing
Alan Turing was a gay man, a scientist and a war hero. (Getty)
The “Alan Turing Law”, part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, serves as an amnesty law pardoning criminal convictions of men who were cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.
Named after Alan Turing, the cryptographer who helped to break the German Enigma code who had previously been convicted of ‘gross indecency’ and was chemically castrated, who was granted a royal pardon.
The association of British Insurers Guide to minimum standards 2018
HIV discrimination was removed from the previous wording included the association of British Insurers Guide to minimum standards in 2018 for being highly judgemental and stigmatising.
The new guidance from the trade association made up of hundreds of insurers reflects the considerable progress that has been made for those living with HIV over the last thirty years.
In 2019, single parents could apply for parental rights after surrogacy
An adaption to the law came into force making parental orders (which give parenthood to the intended parents after the birth and extinguish the status of the surrogate) available to single parents as well as to couples.
All these changes helped LGBT+ families really flourish, providing the right to alternative family structures, from marriage equality to adoption and surrogacy for same-sex couples being made more accessible; the protection against discrimination both in and outside the workplace, against neighbours or providers, altering the way they approach members of the LGBT+ community.
Although we should celebrate how far LGBT+ rights have progressed there are still things left unaddressed and biases still restricting genuine equality.
Here are just some of the changes needed for greater equality:
Surveys and soft supervision by the EU will be lost on LGBT+ laws and rights so the UK need to put in place its own protections to ensure we are continually moving in the right direction.
Proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act were effectively dropped, so transgender people still need a medical diagnosis to legally change gender. This is archaic and is unfair. It is our hope that these proposals for reform are brought back soon.
Although LGBT+ education in schools was made mandatory there continues to be resistance from some parents and religious campaign groups. This means that how this education is to be implemented remains uncertain. Laws around this, to provide a framework for this contentious area would be welcome.
Making surrogacy in the UK smoother with automatic parental rights.
We have come a very long way and things are slowly evolving, but there is still more to do and mindsets left to modify.
Russia discriminated against a trans woman and violated her right to family life by denying her any contact with her children, Europe’s leading human rights court has ruled.
In a landmark judgement released on Tuesday (6 July), the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled in favour of a divorced trans woman who was blocked by Russian domestic courts from seeing her two young children back in 2017.
It marks the first time the court has found a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) on the basis of a person’s gender identity. Russia ratified the convention in 1998 and is therefore under the court’s jurisdiction.
“It was clear from the domestic decisions … that the influence of the applicant’s gender identity on the assessment of her claim had been a decisive factor leading to the decision to restrict her contact with her children,” the court said.
“The applicant had therefore been treated differently from other parents who also sought contact with their estranged children, but whose gender identity matched their sex assigned at birth.”
Reacting to the judgement, executive director of TGEU (Transgender Europe), Masen Davis, said: “The kids are alright – there is nothing wrong with being a trans parent! Today, we celebrate this important message together with all trans families.
Every fourth trans person in Europe is a parent. Today’s judgement gives legal security to many of them.
“We congratulate the applicant for having gone all the way to Strasbourg to defend her right to be the best possible parent to her children.”
The woman, identified only as AM, separated from her wife after seven years of marriage and gained legal gender recognition in 2015, according to court documents.
The following year AM’s wife denied her access to their children, born in 2009 and 2012, with a district court claiming her visits would have a “negative impact on the mental health and psychological development” of the children.
The European Court, however, noted that the domestic courts had failed to demonstrate that the restriction was justified and well-substantiated.
“Too often we are hearing the best interest of the child being abused as an argument to limit the rights of LGBTI people,” said Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe.
“We are glad to see the Court clearly rejecting such an abusive argument, and instead naming very concrete responsibilities for state authorities in ensuring the best interest of the child. Spreading hatred, misinformation and splitting loving parents from their children is not in the best interest of children.”
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán has claimed that his cruel law banning the “promotion” of LGBT+ lives to minors is “not about homosexuality”.
In June, Orbán and his ruling party passed legislation restricting the portrayal of LGBT+ people on media, school materials and advertisements aimed at minors. It was quickly compared to Russia’s “gay propaganda bill” and Britain’s Section 28.
But faced with backlash from EU leaders, Orbán simply sidestepped their concerns with an astonishing claim at a European Council summit last week.
“It’s not about homosexuality,” he said, according to the Independent.
“It’s about the kids and the parents.
“I am defending the rights of homosexual guys but this law is not about them.”
Hungary’s oldest LGBT+ campaign group Háttér Society called his words blatant “lies”.
Despite Orbán telling EU officials that there is “no law about homosexuality”, the bill in question references homosexuality six times, the group said.
“The truth is that the law passed two weeks ago makes explicit references to homosexuality… in the context of declaring that it is ‘prohibited to make available to children under the age of 18 any (…) content [which] promotes or portrays deviation from the self-identity in line with the birth sex, gender reassignment, and homosexuality’.”
Háttér Society debunked Orbán’s claims that he “protects” the rights of “gay guys”, in particular, noting that his voting record says it all.
Orbán has voted against anti-discrimination laws and same-sex adoption rights, and in favour of abolishing the Equal Treatment Authority, the nation’s equality watchdog.
The group also pointed to a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights which found that 95 per cent of LGBT+ Hungarians feel the government has not tackled anti-LGBT+ hate.
As EU officials consider choking Hungary’s funding as one way to squash the law, 17 of the bloc’s leaders have signed an open letter pledging to “continue fighting against discrimination towards the LGBTI community”.
“Respect and tolerance,” the letter stated, “are at the core of the European project.”
In recent years, LGBTQ rights have made significant advancements in the United States, but there remain areas of growing legislative hurdles and challenges.
In a country that is divided on a long list of cultural and societal issues, the acceptance of gay marriage stands out as a remarkable exception. Once a divisive issue, it now has the support of 7 in 10 Americans, according to a recent poll from Gallup.
But perhaps even more impressive, gay marriage now has majority support across a long list of voter groups.
It’s probably not a big surprise that 83 percent of Democrats say they believe gay marriage should be recognized by law, but that’s also true of 73 percent of independents and, more unexpectedly, 55 percent of Republicans.
And the Gallup data shows strong support from young and old as well. More than 80 percent of those from ages 18 to 34, but also 72 percent among middle-aged Americans and 60 percent support among those 55 and older.
That last number is especially eye-catching. Older Americans tend to be more culturally conservative than the public at large and 60-percent support is a solid number.
To give a sense of just how solid support for gay marriage is today, compare it to Gallup’s numbers on some other somewhat divisive topics.
After decades of debate, the morality of abortion remains as divisive as ever — 47 percent of Americans believe it is morally acceptable.
Obamacare may be the law of the land, particularly after the Supreme Court’s June ruling on the law, but still only 56 percent of Americans believe the federal government should make sure people have health care coverage.
And, it may be close, but more Americans believe gay marriage should be legal than believe that global warming is occurring. It’s close (a statistical tie really) but gay marriage holds a slight edge in the percentages.
Those numbers give a sense of the depth of support for legal same-sex marriage and they are even more remarkable when you realize how fast opinions on the unions have changed. In 15 years, the issue has gone from culturally divisive to culturally decided.
How dramatic is that swing? Compare it to the relatively slow public acceptance of marriage between black and white Americans.
It took “interracial marriage” almost 40 years to gain acceptance in the United States — that’s comparing support the first time Gallup asked the question (1958) to when it broke 50 percent support in the 1990s. When Gallup first asked about gay marriage in 1996, only 27 percent of Americans supported legalizing the bond. In just 15 years, 2011, 53 percent of Americans supported legalizing the practice.
Court decisions on the two practices only drive the point home.
Even if one uses the Supreme Court’s 1967 Loving decision (the ruling that made laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional), as a marker for public opinion, it was still roughly 30 years before interracial marriage was accepted by the public. By the time the Supreme Court ruled that all states had to honor gay marriage as legal in 2015, 60 percent of Americans already favored that view.
In other words, the court was leading the nation on interracial marriage, but essentially following public opinion on gay marriage.
But not all issues are settled or headed in a positive direction for the LGBTQ community. Particularly on issues that concern transgender people, state legislatures are writing legislation to limit what that population can and can’t do.
Research from the group Freedom for All Americans finds that 38 different states have proposed legislation in 2021 that would limit what trans Americans can do covering areas ranging from sports to homeless shelters to medicine. Texas and Tennessee led the way with 12 pieces of legislation each, according to the group.
And Gallup polling data from this year shows there has been a slight decline in acceptance for idea of transgender people serving in the military. Support for the idea is still high, 66 percent, but down five points from where it was in 2019. That number bears watching. It could just be a blip or something more.
The real lesson in Pride Month, however, may be as much about politics and the malleability of public opinion in America today as it is LGBTQ rights.
After all, Pride Month itself is still a relatively young event. It was just over 20 years ago, only in 1999, that then-President Bill Clinton declared June “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month” for the first time. Back then, only 35 percent of Americans thought gay marriage should be recognized by law, half the number in the 2021 poll.
It’s evidence that even in a time of deep partisanship on what seems to be a contentious issue, opinions can still change — and rapidly
We never thought that a landscaper booking website would publish a study about the horniest cities in the United States, but 2021 apparently had more surprises in store for us.
LawnStarter says it ranked the libido levels of 200 U.S. cities by “nine key indicators of sexual arousal,” including proportion of single residents, Google search interest in adult content, and sales of sex toys.
To measure the thirst of each metropolis, the researchers culled data from All Swingers Clubs, Eventbrite, Google Trends, Innerbody Research, Lovehoney, U.S. Census Bureau, and Yelp.
The results? The horniest cities in America, according to the survey, are:
Paradise, Nevada
Orange, California
Hollywood, Florida
Providence, Rhode Island
Atlanta, Georgia
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Newark, New Jersey
Dayton, Ohio
Tempe, Arizona
Baltimore, Maryland
Paradise, Nevada, has more sex shops and adult entertainment venues than any other city, according to LawnStarter, while Providence, Rhode Island, sells the most sex toys out of the cities surveyed. LawnStarter also notes that California and Florida cities dominate the top 10 in all nine metrics, crediting those states’ standout sex drives to “sand, sweat, skin, and sangria.”
