# data[].attributes.body
I will be focusing on lgbtq+ rights throughout the past 50 years in the United States. There has been a huge advancement in gay and trans rights in the past 50 years but there has also been a ton of setbacks. We have made a tremendous amount of progress but it is still a jagged line. Some states are more progressive than others and that can create a lot of backlashes but we bounce back and continue to progress. 53 years ago is when stonehall, a monumental moment in history, happened and ever since then there has been huge milestones for the lgbtq+ community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Christopher St. Liberation Day - June 28th, 1970

# data[].attributes.subject
Christopher St. Liberation Day - June 28th, 1970

# data[].attributes.body
Christopher St. Liberation Day was created to memorialize and celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall riots. This day was marked as Americas first ever gay pride parade which was continued every year since then in the month of June.  Thousands of people from the lgbtq+ community marched the streets throughout New York despite their fear of violence from the police and the public. Another march was held on the same day in Los Angeles and then soon after marches were held everywhere across the world. The people on June 28th in 1970's were brave and fearless and inspired people all over the world to not live in silence anymore. (ourhistory.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Page One · Gay Liberation in New York City · OutHistory: It’s About Time

# data[].attributes.body
In 1982 representatives requested for the GAO to examine the Department of Defense policy to exclude gay people from joining the military. Their reason for this is that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and gay people's performance in the military is impaired because they engage in homosexual acts. They hid their homophobia by masking it as patriotism and kicked out an estimate of 1,500 men and women from the military under the category of "homosexuality". (Fordham University)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Homosexuals in the Armed Forces:
United States GAO Report

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington DC 20548

National Security and International Affairs Division

B-247235

June 12, 1992

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
The Honorable Gerry E. Studds
The Honorable Ted Weiss
House of Representatives

The report responds to your joint request that we review the Department of Defense's (DOD) policy of excluding homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. Also, as you requested, our supplemental report Defense Force Management: Statistics Related to DOD's Policy on Homosexuality (GAO/NSIAD-92-98S) contains statistical information such as the number of service personnel expelled for homosexuality as a result of DOD's exclusion policy.

Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to interested committees; other Members of Congress; and the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. We will make copies available to other parties upon request.

Please contact the Director for Defense Force Management Issues, Paul L. Jones, on (202) 275-3990, if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. The Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Frank C. Conahan
Assistant Comptroller General

Executive Summary

Purpose

In response to a request from Representatives John Conyers, Jr., Ted Weiss, and Gerry E. Studds, GAO examined certain aspects of the Department of Defense's (DOD) policy of excluding homosexuals from serving in the U.S. armed forces. Specifically, GAO was asked to

compile and analyze statistics on the separation of homosexuals from the military services between 1980 and 1990, including the number of personnel by service, race/ethnicity, gender, rank, and occupational category;

determine the cost o replacing personnel separated under this policy and the cost of investigating allegations of homosexuality;

identify and analyze the evidence that has been developed by DOD the military services, or nondefense sources and cited as support for the current policy on homosexuality; and

obtain information on the general public's attitudes, other nations' military forces policies, and other organizations' views on the compatibility of homosexuality with the military or other work environments.

Background

According to DOD officials, U.S. forces have had policies prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military since the beginning or World War II. DOD's current policy on homosexuality was formalized in 1982 and specifically state that:

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank an command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

According to DOD, a homosexual is "a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts." DOD define a homosexual act as "bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires."

Results in Brief

On the basis of its policy of excluding homosexuals from the military, DOD annually expelled an average of about 1,500 men and women between 1980 and 1990 under the separation category of "homosexuality." These expulsions reached a high of about 2,000 in 1982 and a low of about 1,000 in 1990. Separations for homosexuality do not require a determination that an individual's behavior affects the military's mission. In terms of rank, gender, and race/ethnicity, the majority of those expelled were enlisted personnel; most were men (about 78 percent); and most were white. When challenged, these discharges have been routinely upheld in the military adjudication and civil court systems.

DOD does not maintain records of the cost associated with administering its policy; nor does it record the cost of investigating alleged cases of homosexuality. Accordingly, our analysis was limited to estimates of the costs of recruiting and training individuals to replace personnel discharged for homosexuality.

Major psychiatric and psychological organizations in the United States disagree with DOD's policy and believe it to be factually unsupported, unfair, and counterproductive. In additions, two DOD / service - commissioned study efforts have refuted DOD's position on the potential security risk associated with homosexual orientation as well as disclosed information that raised questions about the basic policy. Further, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recently acknowledged that homosexual orientation is no longer a major concern.

GAO also found that

recent polls suggest that the public has become more accepting or homosexuality and of homosexuals' serving in the military;

some U.S. allied nations have policies similar to that of the United States, and others have policies that permit homosexuals to be members; and

police and fire departments in several major U.S. cities have removed employment restrictions without adverse effects on mission.

GAO Analysis

Number of Discharges

During fiscal years 1980 through 1990, approximately 17,000 servicemen and women (an average of about 1,500 per year) were separated from the services under the category of "homosexuality." Approximately 1,000 military personnel were discharged in 1990. No determination that their behavior had adversely affected the ability of the military services to perform their missions was required. In terms of rank, gender, and race/ethnicity, the majority were enlisted personnel; most were men; and most were white. However, some groups were consistently discharged at a rate higher than their representation in the total active force or individual service. For example, between 1980 and 1990, the navy representing 27 percent of the active force, accounted for about 51 percent of the discharges; and women, representing 11 percent of the total active navy force, accounted for 22 percent for those discharged.

Cost of Policy

Limited cost information associated with he administration of DOD's policy was available. Basically, only the costs of recruiting and training the personnel need to replace those discharged for homosexuality could be readily estimated. In fiscal year 1990, recruiting and initial training costs associated with the replacement of personnel discharged for homosexuality were estimated to be $28,226 for each enlisted troop and $120,772 for each officer. The total cost of replacing personnel discharged for homosexuality, however, would need to include other factors such as out-processing and court costs.

The services; investigative agencies could not provide specific information n the cost of investigating alleged cases of homosexuality. However during fiscal years 1986 through 1990, DOD investigative agencies conducted a total of 3,663 such investigations. In 1990, a total of about 472 investigations were conducted. These figures are approximate because the services can administratively handle investigations involving homosexuality under other categories, and the investigative agencies had to estimate the number of such cases. In addition, Navy investigations are simultaneously categorized as more than one offense, such as sodomy and indecent assault; again, the Navy adjusted its figures to account for this policy.

Studies of Homosexuality in the Military

DOD and the services have commissioned two major efforts that focused o whether homosexuals were more of a security risk than heterosexuals and concluded that there was no factual data to substantiate that premise. The Navy's 1957 Crittenden Report (1) (Which did not question the underlying premise of DOD's policy) stated, "A third concept which persists without sound basis in fact is the idea that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk." A more recent draft report, prepared by DOD's Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC), commented that the DOD policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military was based on the same rationale used to limit the integration of blacks (2) Specifically it stated:

The order to integrate blacks was first met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military establishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of these predictions of doom has come true.

The PERSEREC effort, initiated in 1986, has been packaged as several interim products with the final report issued in late 1991.

In addition, nations organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, familiar with the extensive research conducted on homosexuality in the general population and with military veterans, disagree with DOD's policy and the policy's implied characterization of homosexuals.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee, the Secretary of Defense in July 1991 and the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff in February 1992 backed away from security concerns as a major basis for DOD's policy. However, both officials continued to support the policy on the basis of their belief that it is needed to maintain good order and discipline.

Attitudes toward Homosexuality

General public attitudes in the United States about homosexuality appear to be changing. GAO reviewed three recent national polls, conducted by Gallup and Penn and Schoen Associates, Inc., which indicated that more Americans now say they believe that homosexuals should be allowed to participate in various occupations, including the armed forces. A Gallup survey conducted in March 1991 of a cross section of the American population of adults aged 18 and over whoed that 69 percent of those interviewed felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the armed forces, whereas only 51 percent felt that way in 1977.

Selected Police/Fire Department Polices

Additionally, since the early 1970s, a number of police and fire departments have adopted policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and have hired homosexuals into their work forces. Officials from all eight of the departments that GAO contacted stated that they had not experienced any degradation of mission associated with these polices. Most department officials did not identify major problems related to retaining homosexuals in a work force, but a few pointed out isolated cases of problems indirectly involving homosexuals.

Other Nations' Policies on Homosexuals in the Military

The polices regarding homosexuals serving in the military forces of 17 selected nations -- predominately members of the North Atlantic Treat Organization and other U.S. allies -- ranged from polices very similar to that of the United States to no stated policy addressing homosexuality as either a legal or a military personnel issue.

Four of the 17 countries, or about 24 percent, and polices that appear to have been designed to prevent homosexuals form entering the military service and to separate from service or preclude retention beyond an existing service obligation those active duty personnel identified as homosexuals. While 13 countries did not exclude homosexuals from entering their armed forces, several had polices requiring separation if an individual's homosexuality was disclosed later or if an individual's behavior was found to be aggressive, harassing, or disruptive. During the past 10 years, at least two countries have dropped their exclusion policies. One of the four countries that now exclude homosexuals is reviewing its policy -- it expects to rescind the existing restriction in the near future.

Recommendations

On May 19, 1992, a bill to prohibit discrimination by the armed forces on the basis of sexual orientation was introduced. While GAO is making no recommendations in this report, GAO's analysis should assist the Congress in deliberating legislative initiatives relative to changing DOD's policy, which excludes homosexuals from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

Agency Comments

In commenting on the draft of this report, DOD agreed or partially agreed with some findings and did not agree with others. DOD said that its homosexual exclusion policy is not based on any belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder, nor is it abased solely on security concerns. DOD said that GAO correctly notes that the DOD policy is based on military judgement and that scientific or sociological analyses are unlikely to affect its policy of excluding homosexuals from the military. DOD said that the courts consistently have found that the military interests underlying the policy -- good order, discipline, and morale -- were substantial and that military concern about homosexuality has a basis in fact.

DOD said that GAO erred in stating that the two cited reports did not support DOD's policy. DOD said that the Crittenden report clearly supported the policy and the PERSEREC draft misstated the policy. That is, DOD said that the PERSEREC draft did not address the issues of morale, discipline, and so on, and, therefore, its "analysis" was flawed.

DOD correctly states that the Crittenden report did not question the premise of DOD's exclusionary policy -- that is, that homosexuality is incompatible with military service -- and GAO's report points this out. However, the report that was issued in 1957 stated that (1) many homosexuals have served honorable in all branches of the military and (2) the concept that homosexuals pose a security risk is unsupported. It also noted that the number of homosexuals disclosed represented only a very small proportion of those in the Navy.

With regard to the PERSEREC draft, GAO recognizes that this study went beyond its directed task. However, GAO believes that the information presented should not be discounted by DOD solely for that reason.

In a draft of this report, GAO suggested that individual Members of Congress may wish to direct the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the basis for DOD's prohibition. Because legislation has since been introduced on this matter, GAO has deleted its suggestion.

Footnotes

1. Officially, the Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing With Homosexuals Mar. 15, 1957.

2. Presidential Executive Order 9981, July 26, 1948, required the integration of blacks into the armed forces. Congress also passed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act in 1948 to institutionalize career opportunities for women in the military.

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Order for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 275-6241.

The Site Concept and Design: created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 20 January 2021 [ Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action. Paul Halsall CV]

©

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Homosexuals in the Armed Forces: United States GAO Report

# data[].attributes.headline
Wisconsin Bans Discrimination Based off of Sexual Orientation - March 12, 1982

# data[].attributes.subject
Wisconsin Bans Discrimination Based off of Sexual Orientation - March 12, 1982

# data[].attributes.body
"On February 25, 1982 Wisconsin governor Lee Dreyfus signed into law a bill that made it illegal for state or private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation in employment and housing. Wisconsin became the first state in the nation to enforce such a law at the state level.
It would be nine more years before another state would adopt such protections, making Wisconsin an early leader in protecting the rights of LGBTQ persons." (Jennifer P, Milwaukee Public Library)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First in the Nation - Wisconsin’s Gay Rights Law · MPL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1982 the Wisconsin State Legislature passed the United States’ first state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. attitudes toward homosexuality were consistently negative. Although, since stonewall gay and lesbian people saw a remarkable period of transformation. Gay people were finally getting visibility, even if it was negative, and they were starting to be talked about.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dont Ask, Dont Tell Policy - December 21, 1993

# data[].attributes.subject
Dont Ask, Dont Tell Policy - December 21, 1993

# data[].attributes.body
For years gay and trans people were not allowed to serve in the arm forces but that changed when another discriminatory law took over called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which lifted the ban of gay in the military but forced gay people to stay in the closet. "Under the terms of the law, homosexuals serving in the military were not allowed to talk about their sexual orientation or engage in sexual activity, and commanding officers were not allowed to question service members about their sexual orientation. Although Clinton introduced “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a liberalization of existing policy, saying it was a way for gays to serve in the military when they had previously been excluded from doing so, many gay rights activists criticized the policy for forcing military personnel into secrecy and because it had fallen far short of a policy of complete acceptance." (Britannica)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. Pres. Barack Obama Official White House Video

Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), byname for the former official U.S. policy (1993-2011) regarding the service of homosexuals in the military. The term was coined after Pres. Bill Clinton in 1993 signed a law (consisting of statute, regulations, and policy memoranda) directing that military personnel "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, and don't harass." When it went into effect on October 1, 1993, the policy theoretically lifted a ban on homosexual service that had been instituted during World War II, though in effect it continued a statutory ban. In December 2010 both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to repeal the policy, and Pres. Barack Obama signed the legislation on December 22. The policy officially ended on September 20, 2011.

Chuck Kennedy-Official White House Photo

In the period between winning election as president in November 1992 and his inauguration in January 1993, Clinton announced his intention to quickly seek an end to the U.S. military's long-standing ban on homosexuals in the ranks. Although the move was popular among many Americans, notably gay activists who had supported Clinton's campaign, and Clinton had promised action during the election campaign, few political analysts thought he would move on such a potentially explosive issue so quickly. The move met with strong opposition, including from Sen. Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia who headed the Senate Armed Services Committee. Indeed, Clinton's declaration put the president at odds with top military leaders and with a number of key civilians who had oversight responsibilities for the armed forces. After heated debate, Clinton managed to gain support for a compromise measure under which homosexual servicemen and servicewomen could remain in the military if they did not openly declare their sexual orientation, a policy that quickly became known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Yet military officers were overwhelmingly opposed to that approach, fearing that the mere presence of homosexuals in the armed forces would undermine morale. The policy was further subverted by discrimination suits that upheld the right of gays to serve in the military without fear of discrimination.

Under the terms of the law, homosexuals serving in the military were not allowed to talk about their sexual orientation or engage in sexual activity, and commanding officers were not allowed to question service members about their sexual orientation. Although Clinton introduced "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a liberalization of existing policy, saying it was a way for gays to serve in the military when they had previously been excluded from doing so, many gay rights activists criticized the policy for forcing military personnel into secrecy and because it had fallen far short of a policy of complete acceptance. For a variety of reasons, the policy did little to change the behaviour of commanders; gay and lesbian soldiers continued to be discharged from service. During the Iraq War, which began in 2003, the policy came under further scrutiny, as many Arab linguists who were gay were discharged by the military.

By the 15-year anniversary of the law in 2008, more than 12,000 officers had been discharged from the military for refusing to hide their homosexuality. When Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008, he pledged to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military (a stance that was, according to public opinion polls, backed by a large majority of the public). During Obama's transition, Robert Gibbs, his press secretary, unequivocally reiterated that position. Although gay activists hoped that Obama would overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" quickly, discharges continued during Obama's first year in office. In February 2010 the Pentagon announced its plan to reevaluate the policy and soon began a study, due in late 2010, that would determine how a repeal would affect the military. The following month, new measures were introduced to immediately relax the enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to make it more difficult for openly gay military service members to be expelled. The measures included permitting only high-ranking officers to oversee discharge proceedings and requiring higher standards for evidence presented in such cases. For example, under the new guidelines all third-party testimony had to be made under oath.

In May 2010 the U.S. House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate panel voted to allow the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," pending completion of the Pentagon study and certification by the president, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that lifting the ban would not adversely affect military readiness. While the Pentagon review was being carried out, the policy was subject to a lawsuit claiming that it violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of service members. In September a federal judge agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that it was unconstitutional, though the ruling did not invalidate the law immediately. Later that month efforts to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" stalled in the Senate, when the annual National Defense Authorization Act-which included several contentious bills, including the one that would allow for the law's repeal-was filibustered by Republicans.

In October "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was halted after a federal judge in California issued an injunction banning the military from enforcing the policy. Later that month, however, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was reinstated after a stay was granted as the U.S. Justice Department appealed the injunction. Amid uncertainty concerning the policy's future, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued stricter guidelines for its enforcement, requiring that the secretary of the air force, army, or navy consult with both the undersecretary of defense and the Pentagon's top legal official before expelling a gay service member.

On November 30, 2010, the Pentagon released its report of its study on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which found that repealing the policy would pose little risk to military effectiveness. Some 70 percent of service members surveyed believed that ending the policy would have mixed, positive, or no impact. However, some 40-60 percent of those in the Marine Corps expressed negative views or concerns about overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." After a continued filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act, independent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins introduced in the U.S. Senate a stand-alone bill that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, where it passed 250-174 on December 15. Three days later the measure overcame a Republican filibuster attempt by a vote of 63-33, and the repeal bill was passed later that day 65-31. President Obama praised the vote, releasing a statement that said, "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed." Obama signed the bill on December 22. Before the law could be officially enacted, however, the Pentagon had to devise a plan for implementing the repeal, which included updating various policies and regulations as well as developing education and training programs for troops. On July 22, 2011, Obama certified that the military was ready to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also signed off on the certification. After a mandatory 60-day time period passed, the repeal took effect on September 20, 2011.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't Ask, Don't Tell | United States policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), byname for the former official U.S. policy (1993-2011) regarding the service of homosexuals in the military. The term was coined after Pres. Bill Clinton in 1993 signed a law (consisting of statute, regulations, and policy memoranda) directing that military personnel

# data[].attributes.headline
Vermont as the First State to Approve of Same Sex Unions - April 26, 2000

# data[].attributes.subject
Vermont as the First State to Approve of Same Sex Unions - April 26, 2000

# data[].attributes.body
"The Vermont House of Representatives gave its final approval today to a bill creating same-sex marriages in almost everything but the name. The State Senate approved the bill last week, and Gov. Howard Dean said he would sign it into law within days. The civil unions are not expected to be recognized by other states and will not entitle the partners to federal benefits. But the bill does create a sweeping marriagelike system that allows the state to confer on same-sex couples virtually all of the more than 300 rights and responsibilities enjoyed by married couples, from health insurance benefits to inheritance rights."
Although the civil union is not the same as marriage, this day made it one step closer to legalizing gay marriage.  (Carey Goldburg, New York Times)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Vermont House of Representatives gave its final approval today to a bill creating same-sex marriages in almost everything but the name. The State Senate approved the bill last week, and Gov. Howard Dean said he would sign it into law within days.

The 79-to-68 vote to create civil unions set off sighs of relief, tears and hugs among the three same-sex couples whose 1997 lawsuit seeking the right to marry led to this moment. Throughout the morning's debate, one couple, Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles, stood holding their baby son, Seth, beneath a portrait of George Washington. Moments after the vote, Ms. Jolles turned to Ms. Beck and offered a new version of the traditional proposal: ''C.U. me!''

That she could not say ''Marry me!'' reflects the gap between the civil unions, which will be available beginning July 1, and actual marriages. The civil unions are not expected to be recognized by other states and will not entitle the partners to federal benefits.

But the bill does create a sweeping marriagelike system that allows the state to confer on same-sex couples virtually all of the more than 300 rights and responsibilities enjoyed by married couples, from health insurance benefits to inheritance rights. Couples seeking civil unions must register with their town clerk and have the unions certified by a clergy member or a justice of the peace, and partners seeking to dissolve a union must go through family court just as married couples seeking a divorce do.

The bill was a response to a ruling in December by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that gay and lesbian couples denied the right to marry were suffering from unconstitutional discrimination. The court invited the Legislature to come up with a remedy, either by including gay couples in the state's marriage laws or by creating a parallel system.

That ruling and the resulting legislative battles plunged Vermonters into weeks of difficult discussion over questions of gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, and today's debate demonstrated that deep dissent lingered.

Opponents of the bill argued that the majority of Vermonters opposed creating a marriagelike institution for gay couples, and that their will was being ignored.

''Stop shoving this bill down the throats of our people,'' said Representative George Schiavone, a Republican. ''Our people are coughing and gagging and choking on this bill,'' he said, and could ''throw it up and throw us out.''

Some also said that homosexuality was against God's will and that civil unions would undermine traditional marriage.

''This is a sad, dark day for the state of Vermont, and God help us all,'' one opponent said. Another warned, ''What we are trying to do is against the law of nature and against God's law.'' A third called the civil-unions bill ''social rape'' and a sign of ''moral rot,'' and a fourth said gays ''choose to engage in unnatural and unhealthy acts.''

But proponents of the bill carried the day and picked up three votes more than they had won in an earlier House vote last month.

''This bill is not about perversion in any way,'' said Representative Donny Osman, a Democrat. ''It is about love. It is not about sex, it is about relationships.''

And Representative William J. Lippert Jr., a Democrat who is the only openly gay member of the Legislature, said he had to contradict some of the bill's opponents. ''We are not a burden on society,'' he said. ''We are not sinful. We do not indulge in unnatural behavior. We do not ask for special privileges.''

The passage of the bill, Mr. Lippert said, would mean that the state was saying that ''my family, me and my partner's, are a family of worth in the state of Vermont.''

Governor Dean, a Democrat, said he has not decided what kind of signing ceremony to hold, if any. He saw the bill, he said, as a logical extension of Vermont's tradition of treating people equally, a tradition that dated back to the 18th century when the state's Constitution banned slavery.

Like many other proponents of the civil-unions bill, Governor Dean talked today about a ''healing process'' that Vermont now needs after being split by divisions over the issue. The state's population is almost evenly divided over the issue, polls have shown, and public hearings on the topic have sometimes turned unusually ugly.

But even if a healing process begins, the state will be entering an election season in which the civil- unions issue is sure to reverberate.

Governor Dean, who is running for re-election, said he expected the bill to be a factor in what is likely to be a hard-fought race for governor, and some lawmakers have said they expected their votes to cost them their seats.

The gay and lesbian plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they knew, too, that the political process was not over, but today's vote was still cause for celebration -- and serious thoughts as well. One plaintiff, Holly Puterbaugh, pressed by reporters about whether and how she would propose, asked her partner of more than 27 years, Lois Farnham, if she would join her in a civil union.

''Not in front of all these people!'' Ms. Farnham replied.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vermont Gives Final Approval to Same-Sex Unions (Published 2000)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vermont House approves bill creating civil unions for same-sex couples; bill, to be signed by Gov Howard Dean, gives same-sex couples virtually all rights and responsibilities of married couples, from health insurance to inheritance rights; couples will have to register with town clerk, have unions certified by clergy member or justice of the peace, and go through family court to dissolve unions; bill responds to state Supreme Court ruling in December, and is not expected to be recognized in other states or to entitle partners to federal benefits; photos of two lesbian couples (M)

# data[].attributes.headline
Californias Proposition 8 - November 4, 2008

# data[].attributes.subject
Californias Proposition 8 - November 4, 2008

# data[].attributes.body
Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to include language defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage was legal, but Proposition 8 overturned the court's decision and outlawed same-sex marriage. (BallotPedia)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Proposition 8 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 4, 2008. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus reversing a state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus maintaining a state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California.

What did Proposition 8 change?

Proposition 8 added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. As the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California on May 15, 2008, Proposition 8 had the effect of reversing the court's ruling and banning same-sex marriage. In 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause" and prohibited same-sex marriage under the California Constitution.

When was Proposition 8 overturned?

Proposition 8 was upheld under state constitutional law but not federal constitutional law. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision was stayed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on February 7, 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal on June 26, 2013, and the Ninth Circuit permitted same-sex marriages beginning on June 28, 2013.

Strauss v. Horton (State)

On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was constitutional but that same-sex marriages performed before the constitutional amendment went into effect were valid. The court's opinion stated that "by incorporating into the California Constitution a specific provision that expressly restricts the designation of "marriage" to the union of a man and a woman, Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause."

Hollingsworth v. Perry (Federal)

On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision was stayed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on February 7, 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal on June 26, 2013, and the Ninth Circuit permitted same-sex marriages beginning on June 28, 2013.

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the defendants, who were the campaign's sponsors, did not have legal standing.

Election results

California Proposition 8

Result

Votes

Percentage

Yes
7,001,084
52.24%

No

6,401,482

47.76%

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 8 was as follows:

"

Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

"

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

"

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
"

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

"

* Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.

* In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

"

Constitutional changes

The ballot measure added the following underlined language to Article I of the California Constitution:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Protect Marriage, also known as Yes on 8, led the campaign in support of Proposition 8.

Supporters

Organizations

American Family Association

California Catholic Conference of Bishops

California Family Council

Concerned Women for America

Knights of Columbus

National Organization for Marriage

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Individuals

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

"

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it's not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefi ts of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefi ts" as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn't just about "live and let live." State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will.

Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.

However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot. Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society. That is the wrong approach.

Voting YES on Proposition 8 RESTORES the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters. Voting YES overturns the decision of four activist judges. Voting YES protects our children.

Please vote YES on Proposition 8 to RESTORE the meaning of marriage.

"

Opposition

Organizations

Individuals

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

"

OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION-the law of our land-SHOULD GUARANTEE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO EVERYONE-NO ONE group SHOULD be singled out to BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

That's what this election is about-equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.

Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT.

That's why Proposition 8 is wrong for California.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech.

PROPOSITION 8 MANDATES ONE SET OF RULES FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND ANOTHER SET FOR EVERYONE ELSE. That's just not fair. OUR LAWS SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY.

In fact, the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives. We don't need Prop. 8; WE DON'T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.

REGARDLESS OF HOW ANYONE FEELS ABOUT MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT MARRIAGE.

When you're married and your spouse is sick or hurt, there is no confusion: you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. IN EVERYDAY LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need.

EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. Prop. 8 separates one group of Californians from another and excludes them from enjoying the same rights as other loving couples.

Forty-six years ago I married my college sweetheart, Julia. We raised three children-two boys and one girl. The boys are married, with children of their own. Our daughter, Liz, a lesbian, can now also be married-if she so chooses.

All we have ever wanted for our daughter is that she be treated with the same dignity and respect as her brothers-with the same freedoms and responsibilities as every other Californian.

My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently, and now the law doesn't treat them differently, either.

Each of our children now has the same rights as the others, to choose the person to love, commit to, and to marry.

Don't take away the equality, freedom, and fairness that everyone in California-straight, gay, or lesbian-deserves.

Please join us in voting NO on Prop. 8.

"

Background

Same-sex marriage in California before Proposition 8

In 1977, the state adopted a statute that defined marriage as a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) performed same-sex marriages in San Francisco, which were annulled in court. The California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal under the California Constitution on May 15, 2008.

Related measures

Many historical marriage and family-related ballot measures regard the definition of legal marriage. The debate often revolved around whether marriage should be legally defined as the "union of one male and one female" or the "union of two persons [regardless of sex]." Voters chose to define marriage as between "one male and one female" in the following 30 states. The first constitutional prohibition was in 1998, and the latest one occurred in May 2012. All bans on same-sex marriage were overturned in the 2015 United States Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges.

PPIC post-election poll

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll in December 2008 that surveyed 2,003 voters brtween November 5-16 on Proposition 8. Of the sample polled, the following were how various groups voted:

85% of voters identifying themselves as evangelical or born-again Christian voted "Yes."

42% of voters identifying as Christians but not evangelicals voted "Yes"

77% of Republicans voted "Yes."

65% of Democrats voted "No."

85% of voters who also voted for John McCain voted "Yes."

30% of voters who also voted for Barack Obama voted "Yes."

61% of voters identifying as Latino voted "Yes."

62% of those without a college degree voted "Yes."

Path to the ballot

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2008, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.

See also

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Initiative (2008)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Proposition 8 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 4, 2008. It was approved. A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus reversing a state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mathew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. Act - October 22, 2009

# data[].attributes.subject
Mathew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. Act - October 22, 2009

# data[].attributes.body
The Mathew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. Act is an American act of congress which was signed by Barack Obama on  October 28, 2009.  This bill was approved to include acts of violence motivated by gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in federal hate crime legislations. The Act is named after Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr who were both targeted by hate crimes. Matthew Shepard was a gay student in Wyoming who was killed 1998. James Byrd Jr. was a black man who was murdered in Texas by three white nationalists in 1998. (Congress.Gov)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act".

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct "races". Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

(1) the term "crime of violence" has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term "hate crime" has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term "local" means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

(a) Assistance other than financial assistance.-

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

(1) I N GENERAL.-The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) O FFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS.-In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(A) I N GENERAL.-Each State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) D EADLINE.-An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) G RANT AMOUNT.-A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) R EPORT.-Not later than December 31, 2010, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) A UTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

(a) Authority To award grants.-The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of appropriations.-There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

(a) In general.-Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
"§ 249. Hate crime acts
"(a) In general.-

"(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

"(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if-

"(i) death results from the offense; or

"(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

"(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

"(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if-

"(I) death results from the offense; or

"(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

"(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim-

"(I) across a State line or national border; or

"(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

"(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

"(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

"(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)-

"(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

"(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

"(3) O FFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.-Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

"(b) Certification requirement.-

"(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

"(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

"(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

"(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

"(2) R ULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

"(c) Definitions.-In this section-

"(1) the term ''bodily injury'' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

"(2) the term 'explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

"(3) the term 'firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

"(4) the term 'gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.".

(b) Technical and conforming amendment.-The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(a) In general.-Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting "gender and gender identity," after "race,".

(b) Data.-Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ", including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles" after "data acquired under this section".

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

(1) R ELEVANT EVIDENCE.-Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

(2) V IOLENT ACTS.-This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

(3) C ONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) F REE EXPRESSION.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Text - S.909 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
An occurring theme when it comes to lgbtq+ rights is that we tend to take a step forward and then a step backward. America is a melting pot of all different kinds of backgrounds and mentalities so there are a lot of opposing beliefs. In 2008 Barack Obama was elected into office on a campaign of progressivity and he influenced America in all kinds of ways. The number of people that called themselves socially liberal rose and Obamas support of the lgbtq+ community changed the way others viewed it.

# data[].attributes.body
"State lawmakers have proposed a record 238 bills that would limit the rights of LGBTQ Americans this year — or more than three per day — with about half of them targeting transgender people specifically.  The slate of legislation includes measures that would restrict LGBTQ issues in school curriculums, permit religious exemptions to discriminate against LGBTQ people and limit trans people’s ability to play sports, use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity and receive gender-affirming health care."
The number of anti Lgbtq+ laws has skyrocketed from 41 bills in 2018 to more than 250 bills passed in 2022. According to NBC Nearly 8 out of 10 Americans support legislations protecting Lgbtq+ people in America but these bills are being passed on behalf of conservatives and religious groups. (NBC News)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nearly 240 anti-LGBTQ bills filed in 2022 so far, most of them targeting trans people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The annual number of anti-LGBTQ bills to have been filed has skyrocketed over the past several years, from 41 in 2018 to 238 in less than three months of this year.

# data[].attributes.body
As you can see by these posts, Lgbtq+ liberation is still a work in progress and we have a long way to go. Even in a year as progressive as 2022 there is still discrimination everywhere that is being commended by people in power. There are still restrictions that limit the rights of gay and transgender Americans that are being passed which is supported by a large minority. A lot of Americans are in support of the lgbtq+ but what matters is the people in charge that are allowing hatred and discrimination. Overall, Stonewall was more than 50 years ago and since then, peoples mindsets have completely changed in the way view the lgbtq+ community.