Category Archives: LGBT

State Constitutions in the Era of a Shifting Supreme Court

Source: Rockefeller Institute of Government and the Government Law Center at Albany Law SchoolJuly 23, 2018

The Rockefeller Institute of Government and the Government Law Center at Albany Law School recently hosted “How Can State Constitutions Respond to a Shifting Supreme Court?” to examine the role state constitutions can play if the Supreme Court begins to roll back federal protections.

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and the recent nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to take his place, the Supreme Court is expected to shift further to the conservative end of the ideological spectrum, with the potential for weakening or even extinguishing important constitutional protections.

Much attention is being paid to the possible implications for reproductive rights, protections for immigrants, affirmative action, environmental protections, LGBTQ rights, and other issues. So what does it mean for New Yorkers — or for states more generally? Although we often don’t think of state constitutions, many of them offer protections above and beyond what is provided in the federal Constitution.

What role can state constitutions play if the Supreme Court begins to weaken federal protections? In many ways, your position on the states-versus-federal rights issue often depends upon where you sit. Last year the Rockefeller Institute and Government Law Center at Albany Law School issued a report on the topic.

Related:
Protections in the New York State Constitution Beyond the Federal Bill of Rights
Source: Edited by Scott N. Fein and Andrew B. Ayers, the Government Law Center at Albany Law School and the Rockefeller Institute of Government, April 18, 2017

Fifty Years of Loving v. Virginia and the Continued Pursuit of Racial Equality

Source: Fordham Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 6, May 2018

From the introduction:
It has been ten years since this journal last published a volume exploring Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 decision invalidating antimiscegenation laws on equal protection and due process grounds. In that time, the American public has been treated to a virtual smorgasbord of new opportunities to love Loving. First, in a way few could have imagined fifty years ago when seventeen states criminalized interracial marriages, that decision has provided the impetus for a “global network” of celebrations designed to praise interracial relationships and families and to combat discrimination. …. Finally, Loving, and the right to marry it identified, was at the forefront of the national litigation strategy to secure the ability of gay and lesbian couples to enter into marital unions that concerned not only states but also the federal government. Advocates for equal marriage rights repeatedly invoked the Loving Court’s language recognizing marriage as “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival,” in challenging legal provisions that limited marriage to individuals of the opposite sex. Unsurprisingly, Loving subsequently figured prominently in the Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which finally settled legal debates about the right of LGBTQ couples to marry. The Court held that states may not deny same-sex couples the opportunity to formalize their intimate relationships through legal marriage without violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment and dignity under the law. ….

…..Our goal in organizing this Symposium was to explore how Loving has influenced U.S. society institutionally, demographically, and relationally. Doing so obviously required a focus on the present, where the disruptive effects of the interracial “mixing” and racial inclusion Loving endorsed can be seen in the growth of marriages and dating across racial lines. Nearly 15 percent, or one in seven, of all new marriages in 2008 were between people …. The four roundtable discussions and two keynote addresses that constituted this Symposium were designed to advance the multicontextual program of study just described through robust and wide-ranging conversation about Loving and the challenges to equality that attend racial mixture today. While legal issues figured prominently, we fostered a truly interdisciplinary discourse about interracial relationships and racial mixture, which drew on the insights of scholars from a variety of academic backgrounds. ….

Articles include:
The Loving Story: Using a Documentary to Reconsider the Status of an Iconic Interracial Married Couple
By Regina Austin

Hollywood Loving
By Kevin Noble Maillard

Enemy and Ally: Religion in Loving v. Virginia and Beyond
By Leora F. Eisenstadt

Loving’s Legacy: Decriminalization and the Regulation of Sex and Sexuality
By Melissa Murray

Prejudice, Constitutional Moral Progress, and Being “On the Right Side of History”: Reflections on Loving v. Virginia at Fifty
By Linda C. McClain

Residential Segregation and Interracial Marriages
By Rose Cuison Villazor

Loving Lessons: White Supremacy, Loving v. Virginia, and Disproportionality in the Child Welfare System
By Leah A. Hill

LGBT Equality and Sexual Racism
By Russell K. Robinson & David M. Frost

The Hope of Loving and Warping Racial Progress Narratives
By Jasmine Mitchell

Fear of a Multiracial Planet: Loving’s Children and the Genocide of the White Race
By Reginald Oh

Evolution of the Racial Identity of Children of Loving: Has Our Thinking About Race and Racial Issues Become Obsolete?
By Kevin Brown

Multiracial Malaise: Multiracial as a Legal Racial Category
By Taunya Lovell Banks

More Than Love: Eugenics and the Future of Loving v. Virginia
By Osagie K. Obasogie

Race and Assisted Reproduction: Implications for Population Health
By Aziza Ahmed

When a Wrongful Birth Claim May Not Be Wrong: Race, Inequality, and the Cost of Blackness
By Kimani Paul-Emile

Unstitching Scarlet Letters?: Prosecutorial Discretion and Expungement
By Brian M. Murray

The New Writs of Assistance
By Ian Samuel

Family Courts as Certifying Agencies: When Family Courts Can Certify U Visa Applications for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence
By Sylvia Lara Altreuter

Implicit Racial Biases in Prosecutorial Summations: Proposing an Integrated Response
By Praatika Prasad Read More View PDF

State of the Union

Source: Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, Pathways, Special Issue, 2018

From the summary:
The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality is pleased to present its fifth annual report examining the state of the union. In this year’s report, we provide a comprehensive assessment of gender inequality in eleven domains ranging from education to health, employment, earnings, poverty, sexual harassment, networks, and more. The report concludes with a discussion of the most promising sciencebased policies for reducing gender inequality at home and in the labor market.

Articles include:
Gender Identification
Aliya Saperstein
The traditional gender binary just doesn’t work. When respondents of a national survey were asked about their femininity and masculinity, 7 percent considered themselves equally feminine and masculine, and another 4 percent responded in ways that did not “match” their sex at birth (i.e., females who saw themselves as more masculine than feminine, or males who saw themselves as more feminine than masculine).

Education
Erin M. Fahle and Sean F. Reardon
Despite common beliefs to the contrary, male students do not consistently outperform female students in mathematics. It’s only in high school that the male advantage in mathematics surfaces. What’s going on?

Health
Mark Duggan and Valerie Scimeca
For women and men alike, life expectancy has stagnated for the last several years, primarily due to increases in drug poisoning deaths and in the suicide rate. The male-female life expectancy gap, which favors females, fell from 7.6 years in 1970 to 4.8 years in 2010, a reduction of more than one-third.

Employment
Melissa S. Kearney and Katharine G. Abraham
After rising steadily for many decades, the overall female employment rate has been falling since 2000. Why has it fallen? Are there straightforward policy fixes that could increase women’s employment?

Earnings
Emmanuel Saez
When gender differences in labor force participation, fringe benefits, and self-employment income are taken into account, women earn only 57 cents for each dollar earned by men.

Poverty
H. Luke Shaefer, Marybeth Mattingly, and Kathryn Edin
Are women more likely than men to be in deep poverty, official poverty, and near poverty? Yes, yes, and yes.

Safety Net
Linda M. Burton, Marybeth Mattingly, Juan Pedroza, and Whitney Welsh
Why do women use safety net programs more than men? A hint: It’s not just because they’re more likely to be eligible for them.

Occupational Segregation
Kim A. Weeden, Mary Newhart, and Dafna Gelbgiser
Nearly half of the women in the labor force would have to move to a different occupation to eliminate all occupational segregation by gender. This is a classic case of stalled change: If recent rates of change are extrapolated, it would take 330 years to reach full integration.

Discrimination
David S. Pedulla
A new science of gender discrimination is being built with audit studies and other experiments. A key result: Gender discrimination is more likely to emerge when the applicant’s commitment to work can be called into question or when an applicant is behaving in a gender-nonconforming way.

Workplace Sexual Harassment
Amy Blackstone, Heather McLaughlin, and Christopher Uggen
The workplace is rife with sexual harassment. By age 25 to 26, one in three women and one in seven men experience behavior at work that they define as sexual harassment.

Social Networks
Adina D. Sterling
Although men used to have more social ties than men, now the gender gap has reversed and women have the larger networks. But women still have fewer coworker ties than men … and coworker ties matter a lot.

Policy
Marianne Cooper and Shelley J. Correll
What are the most promising science-based policies for reducing gender inequality at home and in the labor market?

Sex Discrimination Law and LGBT Equality

Source: Katie R. Eyer, Advance: The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs, Vol. 11 no. 1, Fall 2017
(scroll down)

….This Issue Brief sets out the reasons why both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination necessarily must be considered sex discrimination under well-established anti-discrimination doctrine. It also responds to the most common arguments raised against such a conclusion. Finally, the Issue Brief concludes by briefly discussing the reasons why, despite the move towards coverage of anti-LGBT discrimination under federal sex discrimination law, explicit formal statutory prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination remain important….

LGBT Policy Spotlight: Public Accommodations Nondiscrimination Laws

Source: Movement Advancement Project, 2018

From the abstract:
This report LGBT Policy Spotlight: Public Accommodations Nondiscrimination Laws a provides a comprehensive overview of the patchwork of federal, state, and local protections against discrimination in public spaces. As the Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, public places have become the next battleground in the fight for full equality for LGBT people. The core issue is whether public accommodations—places of business, public transit, hotels, restaurants, taxi cabs and more—can refuse service to people just because of who they are or whom they love.

Resistance Manual

Source: Stay Woke, 2017

This Wiki is a collective resource, a hub of knowledge and resources to help you resist Trump’s agenda. Add new issues or make additions to any page on this site. Quality submissions will be reviewed and published here.

Topics include:
Trump / GOP Policy Agenda
Obamacare / ACA
Policing
Immigration
Voting Rights
Mass Incarceration
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
Housing and Infrastructure
Women’s Rights / Reproductive Justice
LGBTQ Equality
Educational Justice
Muslim Ban / Registry
Consumer / Financial Protections
Climate / Environment

Essential Readings
find articles, curricula, and other readings in resistance

State and Local Pages
find info on issues, elections, and resources in your state and city

Political Issues
Political Appointments
Executive Actions
Elections
Trump Endorsers and Influencers
Corruption
Russia/Hacking
Mass Surveillance
Media Normalization
Societal Consequences of Trumpism
Institutional Racism

Resources
Crisis Resources
Tools of Resistance
People and Organizations
Upcoming Events/Opportunities

Sexual Orientation in the Labor Market

Source: Trenton D. Mize, American Sociological Review, Published online before print November 15, 2016
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
Most analyses of sexual orientation and earnings find that gay men face a wage gap, whereas lesbian women earn higher wages than similar heterosexual women. However, analyses rarely consider bisexual men and women as a unique group separate from other sexual minorities. I argue that such binary views of sexual orientation—treating sexual minorities as a homogenous non-heterosexual group—have obscured understandings of the impact of sexual orientation on labor market outcomes. Specifically, I predict that unequal outcomes for gay men and lesbian women are partly due to the influence of family arrangements and their effects on earnings. In contrast, I argue that bisexual men and women should be the most disadvantaged in the labor market, due to particularly disadvantaging stereotypes, perceptions of choice to their sexual orientation, and prejudicial treatment. Using data from the General Social Survey (N = 13,554) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N = 14,714), I show that family arrangements explain some of the observed earnings differentials for gay men and lesbian women. Bisexual men and women, in contrast, face wage penalties that are not explained by human capital differences or occupational characteristics. Perceptions of prejudicial treatment partially explain the observed wage gaps.

Blue Cities, Red States

Source: Abby Rapoport, American Prospect, August 22, 2016

As cities have moved left and states have moved right, the conflicts between them have escalated. ….

…..“PREEMPTION” LAWS ARE not new, nor are they necessarily about undoing local legislation. But with some notable exceptions, past preemption laws have generally enforced what can be called “minimum preemption”: They force localities to do something where they might otherwise have done little or nothing. As it’s often said, they set a “floor” for regulation. For instance, the federal government has been setting minimum standards of environmental protection for years, preempting the states from allowing lower environmental standards. Similarly, states often set a floor for various local regulations, whether regarding pollution, trade licensing, gun ownership, or other matters.

Most current preemption laws, by contrast, are what one might call “maximum preemption.” These laws aren’t about setting minimums; instead, they prohibit local regulation. States have prevented localities from creating paid sick leave requirements for businesses, or raising the minimum wage. Many who oppose these measures blame their proliferation on the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, which has drafted “model” preemption bills for state lawmakers to use. “Pretty much anything you can think of that matters to the American family is under assault by local preemption,” says Mark Pertschuk, the director of Grassroots Change, which fights preemption laws around the country……