LGBTQ rights in Missouri

Last updated

LGBTQ rights in Missouri
Map of USA MO.svg
Missouri (US)
Status Legal in Western District counties only since 1999
(State of Missouri v. Cogshell)
Legal statewide since 2003
( Lawrence v. Texas )
Legislative repeal in 2006
Discrimination protections Sexual orientation protection solely in public employment
Family rights
Recognition of relationships Same-sex marriage since 2015
Adoption Yes

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Missouri may experience some legal challenges that non-LGBTQ residents do not. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Missouri, in accordance with 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. In 2006, Missouri codified the legality of same-sex sexual activity into its statutory law.

Contents

Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages. A state court ruling striking down Missouri's same-sex marriage ban ordered the City of St. Louis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. St. Louis County and Jackson County also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On June 26, 2015, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges invalidated the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, including Missouri's.

Missouri is categorized "High Priority to Achieve Basic Equality," the lowest ranking category, in the Human Rights Campaign State Equality Index. [1]

Law regarding same-sex sexual activity

Until 2006, Missouri law defined "deviate sexual intercourse" as "any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the male or female sex organ or the anus by a finger, instrument or object done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person." [2]

Missouri criminalized having "deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex" as "Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree." [3] In 1986, the Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the constitutionality of this prohibition in State v. Walsh. [4] When the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas rendered laws banning consensual sexual activity unenforceable, Missouri was one of only 4 states that criminalized only homosexual sodomy. [5]

In 2006, Missouri removed consensual sodomy from its definition of "Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree." [3] [6]

Recognition of same-sex relationships

In August 2004, 71% of Missouri voters ratified Amendment 2, which restricted the validity and recognition of marriage in Missouri to the union of one man and one woman. Missouri became the first of many states to pass such a referendum. [7] [8]

Same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions

Missouri has recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions since November 2013. On November 14, 2013, Governor Jay Nixon issued an executive order allowing same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions to file a combined Missouri income tax return if they file their federal return jointly. [9] [10] A lawsuit aiming to reverse his order, Messer v. Nixon, was filed in Cole County Circuit Court on January 8, 2014. [11] [12]

The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Barrier v. Vasterling , challenging the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions in state circuit court on February 1, 2014. [13] On October 3, Judge J. Dale Youngs ruled that Missouri's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions violated the plaintiffs' right to equal protection under both the state and federal constitutions. [14] On October 6, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced the state would not appeal the decision. [15]

Lawsuits

Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation

Kelly Glossip sued the state for survivor benefits after the death of his husband, a highway patrol officer. [16] After the trial court dismissed his suit, Glossip appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. [17] The Missouri Supreme Court ruled 5–2 against Glossip in October 2013, saying his claim was denied on the basis of his marital status, not his sexual orientation. [18] [19]

State of Missouri v. Florida

In June 2014, St. Louis officials licensed four same-sex marriages in order to provide the basis for a lawsuit when the state ordered them to stop the practice. [20] St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison found for the plaintiffs on November 5, ruling that Missouri's refusal to license same-sex marriages violates the Missouri and federal constitutions. [21] Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not to seek a stay of the ruling's implementation. [22] He and the Recorders' Association of Missouri said Judge Burlison's order only applied to the city of St. Louis, [23] where the city's marriage license department began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [24] St. Louis County, where an official said "We believe it's a county-by-county decision", [23] began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the next day. [25]

Lawson v. Kelly

On June 24, 2014, the ACLU filed Lawson v. Kelly in Jackson County circuit court on behalf of two same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses in Jackson County. [26] Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster had the case moved to federal district court, where U.S. District Court Judge Ortrie D. Smith ruled for the plaintiffs on November 7. He ordered Jackson County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but stayed his order pending appeal. [27] Despite the stay, Jackson County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately following the decision. [28] On November 21, the plaintiffs asked Judge Smith to lift his stay in light of State of Missouri v. Florida, noting that the state has no position on the request. [29] Attorney General Koster filed notice of appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 5. [30]

Walsh & Nance v. Friendship Village of South County

After a senior housing complex rejected a married lesbian couple, a housing discrimination lawsuit was filed in 2018 by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU of Missouri. The lawsuit argued that this was a case of sex discrimination. A federal judge dismissed the case in 2019, claiming that the discrimination occurred not on the basis of sex but rather sexual orientation, and that the federal Fair Housing Act does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit. The 8th Circuit has chosen to wait for the Supreme Court to issue related rulings that are expected in spring 2020. [31] [32] [33] (Those expected rulings include Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.)

U.S. Supreme Court ruling

On June 26, 2015, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges invalidated the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, making Missouri's restrictions on the licensing and recognition of same-sex marriages unenforceable. On July 7, Governor Jay Nixon issued an executive order directing all state agencies to comply with that ruling, while also rescinding his earlier, narrower executive order with respect to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, which his new ordered superseded. [34]

Domestic partnership registries

Map of Missouri counties and cities that offer domestic partner benefits either county-wide or in particular cities. .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} City offers domestic partner benefits County-wide partner benefits through domestic partnership County or city does not offer domestic partner benefits Missouri counties and cities with domestic partnerships.svg
Map of Missouri counties and cities that offer domestic partner benefits either county-wide or in particular cities.
  City offers domestic partner benefits
  County-wide partner benefits through domestic partnership
  County or city does not offer domestic partner benefits

A number of jurisdictions within Missouri provide domestic partnership registries which only allow for certain benefits and are only valid and applicable within city or county borders:

Adoption and parenting

Missouri has no laws limiting the rights of individuals to adopt children based on the adoptive parents' LGBT status. [39] As of 2009, with respect to same-sex couples, as well as to second-parent adoption where the second parent is the same sex as the first parent, there had been no explicit prohibitions nor any court cases. The Missouri law allowing adults to petition to adopt is MO. ANN. STAT. § 453.010. [40]

Discrimination protection

Map of Missouri counties and cities that have sexual orientation and/or gender identity anti-employment discrimination ordinances Sexual orientation and gender identity with anti-employment discrimination ordinance Sexual orientation in public employment Missouri counties and cities with sexual orientation and gender identity protection.svg
Map of Missouri counties and cities that have sexual orientation and/or gender identity anti–employment discrimination ordinances
  Sexual orientation and gender identity with anti–employment discrimination ordinance
  Sexual orientation in public employment

Since 2010, an executive order was signed by the Governor of Missouri - that explicitly includes "sexual orientation protections for government based employees within Missouri". [41] Missouri legislation does not address discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation whatsoever. [42] After being proposed for nine years, a bill to add "sexual orientation" to Missouri's non-discrimination statute had its first committee hearing in March 2010. [43] On May 17, 2013, the Senate passed legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations by a 19–11. The House of Representatives adjourned without considering the legislation. [44]

Hate crime law

Missouri's hate crime statutes explicitly address both sexual orientation, defined as "male or female heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality by inclination, practice, identity or expression," and gender identity, defined as "having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's gender." [45]

Public opinion

A September 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found that 32% of Missouri voters supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, while 59% were opposed and 9% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 62% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 28% supporting same-sex marriage, 34% supporting civil unions, 37% opposing all legal recognition and 1% not sure. [46]

A May 2012 Public Policy Polling survey found that 36% of Missouri voters supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, while 52% were opposed and 12% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 64% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 33% supporting same-sex marriage, 31% supporting civil unions, 32% opposing all legal recognition and 4% not sure. [47]

A 2017 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll found that 58% of Missouri residents supported same-sex marriage, while 35% opposed. 7% were undecided. Additionally, the same poll found that 65% of Missouri residents supported an anti-discrimination law covering sexual orientation and gender identity, while only 28% opposed. Furthermore, 54% were against allowing public businesses to refuse to serve LGBTQ people due to religious beliefs, while 37% supported allowing such religiously based refusals. [48]

Transgender rights

Transgender sports ban

In May 2023, a bill (SB39) formally passed the Missouri Legislature to legally ban all transgender individuals in any female sports and/or athletics. The bill was signed into law by the Governor of Missouri. A "sunset clause" was added to the legislation so that it will automatically be repealed on August 28, 2027. [49] [50] [51] [52]

Name and gender changes

On April 22, 2013, Missouri courts heard case 13AR-CV00157 about a name change due to gender transition. The amendments granted the petitioner the right to change gender with the Missouri Department of Revenue and other state identification and then on May 20, 2013, case 13AR-CV00240 was heard before the Missouri courts, with a partial delay, on the matter of gender affirmation and recognition, that indirectly allowed for an exception to Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9).

Under a sealed court order, by the original petitioner, cases 13AR-CV00157 and 13AR-CV00240 were invalidated and reversed in May 2022. By virtue of the invalidation and reversal of said cases, Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9) was never invalidated due to the former orders and now that those cases have been reversed there is currently no workaround to the surgical requirement in state law.

Under Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9) a court order will be needed with certified proof of change of sex. This certified proof will need to be printed on the hospital's official letterhead including the attending physician's licensing and contact information; also, the certification needs to state "The Petitioner's physical sex has been altered and the surgical changes are irreversible in accordance with Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9)". [53] All amendment questions or issuance of an amended certificate of birth should be referred to the Missouri Bureau of Vital Statistics and any legal questions concerning the process should be referred to a lawyer. [54] Any changes on the birth certificate will be noted on the original copy of the birth record and marked "amended" on the abstract copy with the corresponding authority (law) listed. The original birth certificate, not including the abstract copy, will have the old name and gender struck through with the corrected name and gender typed above the strike-through. Any challenges to this process will have to be filed in a district or federal court after a circuit court has denied petition. [55] [56]

Between 2016 and 2024, the Missouri Department of Revenue accepted Form 5532 for gender designation changes on a license or ID. It was implemented after a review of state policies marked the department with a 'F' score for human rights and LGBT acceptance. The policy was abruptly changed after an "unspecified incident," once again requiring civilians to acquire either surgery documentation or a court order to change their gender marker. [57]

Transgender youth

As of April 2021, a bill to ban transgender girls from participating in girls' sports teams was advancing in the Missouri House of Representatives. The provision was tacked onto another House bill by a 100–51 vote. [58] The bill died due to sin dine (adjourned) of the Missouri General Assembly.

On April 12, 2022, the house passed a bill to ban transgender individuals from female sports and athletic teams (a similar bill passed in the same House chamber last year). An amendment also passed to "legally allow random inspection of students' genitals within school districts within Missouri" - attached to a Voter Rights Bill so it had more of a chance at passing. [59]

On April 21, 2022, the house debated House Bill 2649, which was sponsored by Representative Suzie Pollock and officially titled the "Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE)" act. The bill would prevent healthcare providers from providing or referring transgender healthcare to anyone under 18, and waives insurance providers the responsibility of covering transgender healthcare. [60] [61] During the hearing, a psychologist named Laurie Haynes, representing, the International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, a lobbyist organization for LGBT conversion therapy, [62] said she supported conversion therapy and pushed for raising the age on the bill to 25. [63] The bill runs contrary to scientific consensus and the recommendations set out by most major medical organizations in the U.S. [61] The bill was protested by trans student activists outside the state capitol, who spoke out in support of their medical rights. [64] The bill ultimately did not pass. [65]

In addition, the house debated HB 1669, proposed by Brian Seitz whose second clause states that "No pupil in any public school shall be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling. [66] [67] The bill died in the committee. [68]

Pollock also added a companion bill, HB 2399, which would extend the window for medical malpractice suites for trans healthcare from 2 years to until the age of 28. The bill would also mandate that before anyone of any age can get trans healthcare, they must be presented with detransition statistics and "information on potential therapeutic, nonmedical approaches." [62] The bill died in the committee. [69]

Healthcare access

Youth

Since August 28, 2023, people under 18 cannot begin gender-affirming hormones or puberty blockers (though they may continue them if they began taking them before this date). In May 2023, the ban was passed by the Missouri Legislature as the Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. Democrats in the state senate negotiated a sunset clause that will automatically repeal the bill on August 28, 2027. [70] [71] Civil rights advocates including the ACLU of Missouri sued to block the ban from taking effect. In August 2024, their initial request to stop the law during litigation with a preliminary injunction was denied. [72] Following that, the trial for the case began in September 2024. [73]

Prior to that, in March 2023, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued an emergency order [74] — to remain in effect for no less than 30 legislative days or 180 calendar days, whichever is longer — declaring gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth experimental, referring to it as "mutilating children for the sake of a woke, leftist agenda", and implementing the following restrictions: [75]

  • Mandating no care be given without a waiting period of 1.5 years or 15 psychological evaluations, whichever is longer.
  • Mandating that any healthcare provider ensure any pre-existing mental health comorbidities are "treated and resolved" prior to starting treatment.
  • Mandating that healthcare providers implement a process to track any and all adverse effects relating to the patient's access to gender-affirming healthcare, for a minimum period of 15 years from the beginning of treatment.
  • Mandating that any prospective healthcare recipient be screened for autism.
  • Mandating that any provider obtain and keep on file a written record of informed consent
  • Mandating that patients must be screened at least yearly for any signs of "social contagion" with regards to their gender identity.

In April 2023, the AG issued an order expanding this directive, mandating that additionally:

  • Patients must now be screened for "social media addiction" at most six months prior to beginning care, with followup screenings annually.
  • The patient must sign a written consent disclosure every three months for the first three years of treatment, and every six months thereafter.
  • The patient must be assessed at least annually from the beginning of treatment for continuing dysphoria.

The attorney general withdrew this order on May 16 after the state legislature passed two bills restricting gender-affirming care for trans youth. [76]

Adult

In April 2023, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued an emergency order [77] (set to expire in February 2024) [78] that would have limited gender-affirming care for adults. However, a judge temporarily blocked it, and in May 2023, Bailey withdrew it. [79]

The order had declared gender-affirming healthcare for adults "experimental" and severely restricted adult trans care, requiring it to meet the following conditions:

  • The patient has exhibited medically documented, consistent, and intense gender dysphoria for at least three years prior to the beginning of treatment.
  • The patient has been through at least 15 psychiatric sessions over an 18-month period, at least 10 of which being with the same therapist, "to explore the developmental influences on the patient's current gender identity" and to screen for any mental health comorbidities.
  • Any detected comorbidities must be fully "treated and resolved".
  • The patient has been screened for autism.
  • The provider must track and document any adverse affects potentially related to the care for a period of 15 years from the beginning of treatment, and prepare it in a form that can be accessed readily for systemic study.
  • The patient must be assessed at least annually from the beginning of treatment for continuing dysphoria.
  • The patient must be regularly screened for any signs of "social contagion".
  • The patient must sign a written consent disclosure every three months for the first three years of treatment, and every six months thereafter.
  • The provider must maintain in the patient's records detailed documentation of said patient's compliance with the above regulations.

Some media outlets pointed out that this order constituted a ban on trans healthcare for adults with conditions as minor as depression or anxiety, [80] [81] while others characterized it as a de facto ban on trans care entirely given that such conditions in trans people are often caused by dysphoria and lack of access to such care in the first place. [82] [83] [84]

Tipline

The state of Missouri currently operates a tipline for citizens to anonymously report any suspected violations of the above orders, as well as general complaints and concerns about a "gender transition intervention" they know of taking place. [85] [86]

Sanctuary cities

In May 2023, Kansas City area was formally declared itself a sanctuary city for transgender individuals and transgender rights. [87] In February 2024, Columbia city council voted to include LGBT protections in the sanctuary city ordinance. [88]

Missouri police

In May 2023, the Missouri Attorney-General did not actually know the difference between "civil" and "criminal" penalties - let alone the police or law enforcement of the recently passed transgender healthcare ban by the Legislature (even way before the Missouri Governor let alone has not signed into law the bill yet). [89]

HIV law reforms

In August 2021, Missouri passed and implemented a bill (SB53) into law to overhaul and reform HIV criminalization laws established in the 1980s - from a felony to a misdemeanor. Similar to California's HIV law. [90] [91]

Summary

Same-sex sexual activity legal Yes check.svg (Since 1999 in western counties of the state, since 2003 statewide)
Equal age of consent (17) Yes check.svg
Anti-discrimination laws in employment Yes check.svg (Since 2020)
Anti-discrimination laws in housing X mark.svg / Yes check.svg (Only in some cities and counties)
Anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations X mark.svg / Yes check.svg (Only in some cities and counties)
Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services X mark.svg / Yes check.svg (Only in some cities and counties)
Anti-discrimination laws in schools and colleges X mark.svg / Yes check.svg (Only in some cities and counties)
LGBT Anti-bullying law in schools and colleges X mark.svg (Local school districts forbidden from enumerating protected classes of children)
Hate Crime law inclusive of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Yes check.svg
Same-sex marriages Yes check.svg (Since 2015)
Stepchild adoption by same-sex couples Yes check.svg
Joint adoption by same-sex couples Yes check.svg
Lesbian, gay and bisexual people allowed to serve openly in the military Yes check.svg (Since 2011)
Transgender people allowed to serve openly in the military Yes check.svg / X mark.svg (Most Transgender personnel allowed to serve openly since 2021) [92]
Transvestites allowed to serve openly in the military X mark.svg [93]
Intersex people allowed to serve openly in the military X mark.svg / Yes check.svg (Current DoD policy bans "Hermaphrodites" from serving or enlisting in the military) [93]
Right to change legal gender Yes check.svg (Requires SRS)
State Medicaid policy inclusive of transition for transgender people X mark.svg (Explicitly exclusive of such medical procedures, and blocks access to transitional medical procedures for transgender youth)
Conversion therapy banned on minors X mark.svg
Access to IVF for lesbian couples Yes check.svg
Surrogacy arrangements legal for gay male couples Yes check.svg [94]
MSMs allowed to donate blood X mark.svg / Yes check.svg (Since 2020; 3-month deferral period) [95]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in the United States</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the United States are among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Alabama</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in the U.S. state of Alabama have federal protections, but still face legal challenges and discrimination on the state level that is not experienced by non-LGBT residents. LGBTQ rights in Alabama—a Republican Party stronghold located in both the Deep South and greater Bible Belt—are severely limited in comparison to other states. As one of the most socially conservative states in the U.S., Alabama is one of the only two states along with neighboring Mississippi where opposition to same-sex marriage outnumbers support.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in West Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of West Virginia face legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT persons. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1976, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since October 2014. West Virginia statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Florida</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Florida have federal protections, but many face legal difficulties on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity became legal in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas on June 26, 2003, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since January 6, 2015. Discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations is outlawed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In addition, several cities and counties, comprising about 55 percent of Florida's population, have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances. These include Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, among others. Conversion therapy is also banned in a number of cities in the state, mainly in the Miami metropolitan area, but has been struck down by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2023, Lake Worth Beach, Florida became an official "LGBT sanctuary city" to protect and defend LGBT rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in New York</span>

The U.S. state of New York has generally been seen as socially liberal in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) rights. LGBT travel guide Queer in the World states, "The fabulosity of Gay New York is unrivaled on Earth, and queer culture seeps into every corner of its five boroughs". The advocacy movement for LGBT rights in the state has been dated as far back as 1969 during the Stonewall riots in New York City. Same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults has been legal since the New York v. Onofre case in 1980. Same-sex marriage has been legal statewide since 2011, with some cities recognizing domestic partnerships between same-sex couples since 1998. Discrimination protections in credit, housing, employment, education, and public accommodation have explicitly included sexual orientation since 2003 and gender identity or expression since 2019. Transgender people in the state legally do not have to undergo sex reassignment surgery to change their sex or gender on official documents since 2014. In addition, both conversion therapy on minors and the gay and trans panic defense have been banned since 2019. Since 2021, commercial surrogacy has been legally available within New York State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Washington (state)</span>

The state of Washington is seen as one of the most progressive states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) rights; with jurisprudence having evolved significantly since the late 20th century. Same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1976. LGBTQ people are fully protected from discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations; the state enacting comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation regarding sexual orientation and gender identity in 2006. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2012, and same-sex couples are allowed to adopt. Conversion therapy on minors has also been illegal since 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Texas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in Texas have some protections in state law but may face legal and social challenges not faced by others. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Texas in 2003 by the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Arkansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arkansas face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arkansas. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Arizona</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBTQ people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Tennessee</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Tennessee may experience some legal challenges that non-LGBTQ residents do not. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1996. Marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in Tennessee since the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in South Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of South Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Dakota, and same-sex marriages have been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in South Carolina</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of South Carolina may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Carolina as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. However, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is not banned statewide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kentucky</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kentucky still face some legal challenges not experienced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity in Kentucky has been legally permitted since 1992, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy statute for same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is legal in Kentucky under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages and all other same-sex marriage bans elsewhere in the country, was handed down on June 26, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Montana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Montana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Montana since 1997. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples, as same-sex marriage has been recognized since November 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities also provide protections in housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Oklahoma</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Oklahoma face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Oklahoma as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Both same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples have been permitted since October 2014. State statutes do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal. This practice may still continue, as Oklahoma is an at-will employment state and it is still legal to fire an employee without requiring the employer to disclose any reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Mississippi</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Mississippi face legal challenges and discrimination not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. LGBT rights in Mississippi are limited in comparison to other states. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Mississippi as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage has been recognized since June 2015 in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. The state capital Jackson and a number of other cities provide protections in housing and public accommodations as well.

References

  1. ↑ Harpold, Lauren. "Missouri Ranks Dead Last in National Survey of LGBTQ+ Equality". Riverfront Times. Retrieved February 2, 2024.
  2. ↑ "Mo. Rev. Stat 566.010 (Supp. 2010)". Moga.mo.gov. August 28, 2013. Archived from the original on November 4, 2013. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
  3. 1 2 House Bill 1698, Mo. Gen. Assembly (Reg. Sess 2006), accessed April 14, 2011
  4. ↑ Google Scholar: State v. Walsh, 713 S.W.2d 508 (Mo. banc 1986), accessed April 14, 2011
  5. ↑ New York Times: "Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Sodomy," June 26, 2003, access April 14, 2011
  6. ↑ Missouri General Assembly: Mo. Rev. Stat 566.090 (Supp. 2010) Archived April 14, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  7. ↑ The Washington Post : Alan Cooperman, "Gay Marriage Ban in Mo. May Resonate Nationwide," August 5, 2004, accessed April 9, 2011
  8. ↑ "Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 33 (Supp. 2010)". Moga.mo.gov. Archived from the original on November 4, 2013. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
  9. ↑ Wilson, Reid (November 15, 2013). "Missouri governor allows same-sex couples to file joint tax returns". The Washington Post . Retrieved September 25, 2014.
  10. ↑ "Executive Order 13-14" . Retrieved April 9, 2014.
  11. ↑ Mannies, Jo (January 9, 2014). "Conservatives File Suit Against Nixon's Order Regarding Same-Sex Couples' Tax Filings". St. Louis Public Radio . Retrieved September 25, 2014.
  12. ↑ Young, Virginia (November 14, 2013). "Missouri to allow joint tax returns for legally married same-sex couples". St. Louis Public Radio . Retrieved November 15, 2013.
  13. ↑ Miley, Cynthia (February 14, 2014). "ACLU files lawsuit over Missouri ban on recognizing same-sex marriages". The Jurist . Retrieved April 28, 2014.
  14. ↑ Johnson, Chris (October 3, 2014). "Judge orders Missouri to recognize same-sex marriages". Washington Blade . Retrieved October 3, 2014.
  15. ↑ "Press Release: Attorney General Koster's statement on his decision not to appeal in Barrier v. Vasterling". Missouri Times. October 6, 2014. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
  16. ↑ Hartmann, Ray (January 2011). "Think Again: A Hero's Unwelcome". St. Louis Magazine . Retrieved February 27, 2013.
  17. ↑ Lippmann, Rachel (February 26, 2013). "Partner Of Late Trooper Takes Benefits Fight To Supreme Court". St. Louis Public Radio . Retrieved February 27, 2013.
  18. ↑ Lippmann, Rachel (October 29, 2013). "Same-Sex Partner Of Missouri State Trooper Ruled Ineligible For Survivor Benefits". St. Louis Public Radio . Retrieved January 22, 2014.
  19. ↑ Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation and Highway Patrol Employees' Retirement System No. SC92583 (Mo., 2013)
  20. ↑ Pistor, Nicholas (June 26, 2014). "Battle over same-sex marriages in St. Louis headed to court". St. Louis Post-Dispatch . Retrieved September 25, 2014.
  21. ↑ Moore, Doug (November 5, 2014). "Judge rules that gay marriage ban in Missouri is unconstitutional". St. Louis Post-Dispatch . Retrieved November 5, 2014.
  22. ↑ "AG Koster's statement regarding today's ruling in St. Louis same-sex marriage case". Missouri Attorney General. November 5, 2014. Archived from the original on November 6, 2014. Retrieved November 5, 2014.
  23. 1 2 Lieb, David A. (November 6, 2014). "Many Missouri Counties Not Granting Gay Marriages". ABC News. AP. Archived from the original on January 19, 2015. Retrieved April 11, 2024.
  24. ↑ Raab, Lauren; Queally, James (November 5, 2014). "Missouri's gay marriage ban thrown out; St. Louis issuing licenses". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved November 5, 2014.
  25. ↑ "St. Louis County Complies with Ruling on Gay Marriage Ban, Issues First Two Same Sex Marriage Licenses". St. Louis County. November 6, 2014. Archived from the original on November 6, 2014. Retrieved November 6, 2014.
  26. ↑ "ACLU challenges Missouri ban on gay marriage". KSDK. Associated Press. June 27, 2014. Retrieved September 25, 2014.[ permanent dead link ]
  27. ↑ Geidner, Chris (November 7, 2014). "Missouri's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved November 7, 2014.
  28. ↑ Morris, Mark (November 7, 2014). "Same-sex marriages begin in Jackson County after U.S. judge finds state ban unconstitutional". The Kansas City Star . Retrieved November 8, 2014.
  29. ↑ "Motion to Lift Stay". Scribd.com. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
  30. ↑ "Notice of Appeal". Scribd.com. Retrieved December 5, 2014.
  31. ↑ "Walsh & Nance v. Friendship Village of South County". Freedom for All Americans. August 16, 2018. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  32. ↑ "Walsh and Nance v. Friendship Village. Case: 4:18-cv-01222-JCH" (PDF). January 16, 2019. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  33. ↑ Fitzsimons, Tim (January 18, 2019). "Judge rules against lesbians rejected from retirement home". NBC News. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  34. ↑ "Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon orders agencies to implement same-sex marriage ruling". Topeka Capital Journal. Associated Press. July 7, 2015. Retrieved July 7, 2015.
  35. ↑ "City of Clayton Approves Domestic Partnership Registry to Improve Access, Enhance Quality of Life" (Press release). City of Clayton. January 25, 2012. Archived from the original on May 15, 2013. Retrieved March 30, 2012.
  36. ↑ "Affidavit of Joanne R. Mossle" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. March 8, 2011. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
  37. ↑ "Ordinance No. 2457" (PDF). City of Olivette. July 26, 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 24, 2014. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
  38. ↑ "Domestic Partnership Registry". City of University City. Archived from the original on April 1, 2012. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
  39. ↑ "American Adoptions - Missouri Adoption Laws: Your Top 10 Questions Answered". www.americanadoptions.com. Retrieved April 24, 2021.
  40. ↑ Human Rights Campaign: Missouri Adoption Law Archived February 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine , accessed April 14, 2011
  41. ↑ "Governor's Executive Order 10-24".
  42. ↑ Missouri General Assembly: Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.010, et seq. (Supp. 2010) Archived March 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine , accessed April 14, 2011
  43. ↑ Messenger, Tony (March 23, 2010). "Gay discrimination measure advances in Mo. House". St. Louis Post-Dispatch . Retrieved February 27, 2013.
  44. ↑ Young, Virginia (May 17, 2013). "Senate advances gay rights bill for first time ever". St. Louis Post-Dispatch . Retrieved May 18, 2013.
  45. ↑ Missouri General Assembly: Missouri Revised Statutes Section 557.035 Archived October 27, 2004, at the Wayback Machine , accessed April 9, 2011
  46. ↑ "Missouri down on Blunt, wants Tigers to stay in Big 12" (PDF). Retrieved November 2, 2013.
  47. ↑ "Missouri will be a swing state this year, voters say" (PDF). Public Policy Polling. Retrieved June 1, 2012.
  48. ↑ "PRRI – American Values Atlas". ava.prri.org.
  49. ↑ "Missouri governor signs anti-trans sports bill & gender-affirming care ban on the same day". June 8, 2023.
  50. ↑ "Missouri lawmakers pass gender-affirming care ban for minors and anti-trans sports bill | CNN Politics". CNN . May 11, 2023.
  51. ↑ "Human Rights Campaign Condemns Missouri State Senate for Passing Anti-Trans Sports Ban Bill". Human Rights Campaign. March 24, 2023.
  52. ↑ "Missouri Senate Bill 39". LegiScan.
  53. ↑ "Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo, Missouri Law, MO Law". www.moga.mo.gov. Archived from the original on March 26, 2017. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
  54. ↑ "Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services". health.mo.gov.
  55. ↑ "Missouri Courts Home". www.courts.mo.gov.
  56. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 26, 2017. Retrieved March 26, 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  57. ↑ Henderson, Andrea Y. (August 20, 2024). "St. Louis LGBTQ group says Missouri's abrupt ID policy changes harm trans people". St. Louis Public Radio. Retrieved August 21, 2024.
  58. ↑ Ballentine, Summer (April 23, 2021). "Missouri House Votes To Ban Trans Athletes From Girls Teams". HuffPost . Retrieved April 24, 2021.
  59. ↑ Villarreal, Daniel (April 15, 2022). "Missouri House could let school districts call for elections to on whether to inspect kids' genitals" . Retrieved May 4, 2022.
  60. ↑ Shannon, Keara (April 27, 2022). "Missouri lawmakers move forward with bills targeting transgender youth health care, sports" . Retrieved May 4, 2022.
  61. 1 2 Coronel, Justina (April 21, 2022). "Missouri bill would punish providers for medical treatment on transgender children". KSDK. Retrieved April 25, 2022.
  62. 1 2 Shackford, Scott (April 25, 2022). "Missouri Lawmakers Suggest Infantilizing Trans Adults and Depriving Them of Treatment Until Age 25". Reason . Retrieved May 4, 2022.
  63. ↑ Migdon, Brook (April 22, 2022). "Missouri lawmakers consider extending proposed ban on gender-affirming care to adults". The Hill . Retrieved April 25, 2022.
  64. ↑ Harms, Siobhan (May 1, 2022). "Student activists protest bill that restricts gender-affirming care for children" . Retrieved May 4, 2022.
  65. ↑ "MO HB2649 2022 Regular Session". LegiScan.
  66. ↑ Wallington, Natalie; Williams, Trey (April 28, 2022). "On The Vine: Missouri, your anti-LGBTQ laws made me gayer". The Kansas City Star .
  67. ↑ Klein, Noah (April 25, 2022). "Missouri lawmakers part of national push in transgender legislation" . Retrieved May 4, 2022.
  68. ↑ "MO HB1669 2022 Regular Session". LegiScan.
  69. ↑ "MO HB2399 2022 Regular Session". LegiScan.
  70. ↑ "Missouri governor signs anti-trans sports bill & gender-affirming care ban on the same day". June 8, 2023.
  71. ↑ "Missouri lawmakers pass gender-affirming care ban for minors and anti-trans sports bill | CNN Politics". May 11, 2023.
  72. ↑ "Judge denies request to halt Missouri's gender-affirming medical care ban". PBS NewsHour. August 29, 2023. Retrieved August 31, 2023.
  73. ↑ Hood, Nydja (September 23, 2024). "Trial begins for lawsuit over gender-affirming care in Missouri". www.kctv5.com. Retrieved October 2, 2024.
  74. ↑ Villarreal, Daniel (March 22, 2023). "Missouri attorney general bans gender-affirming care in "power grab"". LGBTQ Nation.
  75. ↑ Bailey, Andrew (March 20, 2023). "Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey Announces Emergency Regulation on Gender Transition Interventions for Minors". Attorney General's Office.
  76. ↑ "AG Bailey ends emergency rules restricting transgender healthcare". KMOV.
  77. ↑ "Emergency Rule" (PDF). Attorney General's Office. April 13, 2023.
  78. ↑ Ballentine, Summer (May 2, 2023). "Judge Blocks Missouri Rule That Would Limit Transgender Care". HuffPost . Retrieved May 2, 2023.
  79. ↑ "Missouri attorney general withdraws rule targeting trans care". The Kansas City Star . May 16, 2023. Retrieved November 21, 2023.
  80. ↑ Panella, Chris; Griffiths, Brent D. (April 13, 2023). "Missouri's attorney general opened a new front in the GOP's attacks on transgender people: banning treatment for any adult with depression". Insider .
  81. ↑ "Missouri AG issues emergency order restricting gender-affirming health care". The Hill .
  82. ↑ Zoledziowski, Anya (April 14, 2023). "Gender-Affirming Care for Adults Is Now Basically Banned in Missouri". Vice .
  83. ↑ Lieb, David; Schoenbaum, Hannah (April 14, 2023). "Transgender adults brace for treatment cutoffs in Missouri". The Seattle Times . AP. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023.
  84. ↑ Jack Doyle (April 14, 2023). "Missouri AG Directly Cites the New York Times' Anti-Trans Coverage To Justify Horrific New Ban". The Mary Sue .
  85. ↑ "Missouri's attorney general has a website "where people can report trans individuals and the people who help them."". PolitiFact .
  86. ↑ Brown, Jon (March 26, 2023). "Missouri AG issues emergency regulation, tip line to report transgender procedures on minors: 'Child abuse'". Fox News .
  87. ↑ "Kansas City declares itself a "sanctuary city" for transgender people". May 12, 2023.
  88. ↑ Dunlap, Charles (February 20, 2024). "Columbia passes LGBTQ sanctuary city ordinance. Here's how the council voted". Columbia Daily Tribune. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  89. ↑ "Missouri AG told to "Google what police do" after telling cops to enforce trans healthcare ban". May 29, 2023.
  90. ↑ "After 30 years, Missouri reforms HIV transmission criminalization law • Missouri Independent". August 5, 2021.
  91. ↑ "SB53 - Modifies provisions relating to the administration of justice". Senate.mo.gov. Retrieved April 15, 2022.
  92. ↑ "Biden reverses Trump ban on transgender people in military". AP News. January 25, 2021. Retrieved April 15, 2022.
  93. 1 2 Military.com (February 25, 2022). "Medical Conditions That Can Keep You from Joining the Military". Military.com. Retrieved April 15, 2022.
  94. ↑ "Gestational Surrogacy in South Dakota". Creative Family Connections. Retrieved February 1, 2019.
  95. ↑ McNamara, Audrey (April 2, 2020). "FDA eases blood donation requirements for gay men amid "urgent" shortage". CBS News .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.