LGBTQ rights in South Dakota

Last updated

LGBTQ rights in South Dakota
Map of USA SD.svg
Status Legal since 1976
Gender identity State does not require sex reassignment surgery to alter sex on birth certificate
Discrimination protections Protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in employment
Family rights
Recognition of relationships Same-sex marriage since 2015
Adoption Same-sex couples allowed to adopt

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. [1] 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.

Contents

In 2024, The Transformation Project, a transgender rights organisation, sued the state of South Dakota over a discrimination case and won the lawsuit. [1]

Law regarding same-sex sexual activity

Prior to European settlement in the 18th and 19th centuries, there were no known legal or social punishments for engaging in homosexual activity. Perceptions toward gender and sexuality among the Native Americans were different to that of the Western world. Several had traditions of "third gender" people (nowadays also called "two-spirit") who would dress and act as the opposite gender, perform tasks associated with the opposite gender and be fully recognized as such by the members of the tribe. Among the Dakota people, male-bodied people who act as female are known as winkta , and as wíŋkte (pronounced [ˈwɪ̃ktɛ] ) among the Lakota people. [2]

In 1862, the Dakota Territory, which included modern-day North and South Dakota, enacted a criminal ban on heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, which was defined as "crimes against nature". The ban prohibited anal intercourse, regardless of whether the act was committed in private and consensual. Punishment could vary from one year in jail to life imprisonment. [3] In 1877, the maximum penalty was reduced to ten years' imprisonment. In 1910, the definition of sodomy was expanded to include fellatio after State v. Whitmarsh .

In 1976, private, adult, consensual and non-commercial acts of sodomy were legalized with an age of consent set at thirteen years. [4] The age of consent was later raised to fifteen years. [5]

Recognition of same-sex relationships

South Dakota voters adopted a constitutional amendment in November 2006 that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibited the recognition of same-sex relationships under any other name, such as civil unions and domestic partnership agreements. [6] Similar restrictions appear in the state statutes as well. [7]

On June 26, 2015, same-sex marriage became legal in the state of South Dakota and all of the United States due to the Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges . [8]

Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard

On May 22, 2014, six same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit against South Dakota officials seeking the right to marry and recognition of marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The suit, Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, was brought by Minneapolis civil rights attorney Joshua A. Newville, who filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of seven same-sex couples in North Dakota on June 6, 2014. [9] U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier heard arguments on October 17. The state defendants argued she was bound by the Eighth Circuit's decision in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2006), which the plaintiffs said did not address the questions they were raising in this case. [10] On November 12, Judge Schreier denied the defense's motion to dismiss. She found Baker is no longer valid precedent and that Bruning did not address due process or the question of a fundamental right to marry. She dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that South Dakota violated their right to travel. [11] On January 12, 2015, she ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that South Dakota was depriving them of their "fundamental right to marry". She stayed implementation of her ruling pending appeal. [12] On February 10, the plaintiffs asked her to lift the stay, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of a stay in Alabama cases the previous day. [13] Two days later, they requested an expedited response to that request. [14]

Following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, which held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, the state defendants asked the Eighth Circuit to vacate the district court decision and dismiss the case as moot. The plaintiffs on July 1 opposed that request, citing statements by the Attorney General that county officials were responsible individually for interpreting Obergefell. They asked the Eighth Circuit to order the district court to lift its stay. [15] On June 26, Attorney General Marty Jackley said that: "Because we are a nation of laws the state will be required to follow the Court's order that every state must recognize and license same-sex marriage." [16] [17] But some reports said he indicated that local officials would determine whether or how soon to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [18] [19]

Adoption and parenting

South Dakota does not specify laws about adoption by single individuals and married same-sex couples. [20] Lesbian couples have access to assisted reproduction services, such as in vitro fertilization. State law recognizes the non-genetic, non-gestational mother as a legal parent to a child born via donor insemination, but the parents are required to be married. [21] Male gay couples may also undertake gestational and traditional surrogacy arrangements. Courts may declare both intended parents as the legal parents of the child in a pre-birth order. [22]

South Dakota law permits adoption agencies to choose not to place children in certain homes if it would violate the agency's religious or moral convictions. This law, known as S.J. 746 , passed into law in May 2017. [23]

Discrimination protections

Map of South Dakota counties and cities that had sexual orientation and/or gender identity anti-employment discrimination ordinances prior to Bostock
.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{}
Sexual orientation and gender identity in public and private employment
Sexual orientation and gender identity solely in public employment
Sexual orientation in public employment
Does not protect sexual orientation and gender identity in employment South Dakota counties and cities with sexual orientation and gender identity protection.svg
Map of South Dakota counties and cities that had sexual orientation and/or gender identity anti–employment discrimination ordinances prior to Bostock
  Sexual orientation and gender identity in public and private employment
  Sexual orientation and gender identity solely in public employment
  Sexual orientation in public employment
  Does not protect sexual orientation and gender identity in employment

No provision of South Dakota law explicitly addresses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [24]

The county of Oglala Lakota, [25] and the cities of Sioux Falls, [26] and Vermillion prohibit discrimination against county/city employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Others including Minnehaha County, [27] Spearfish and Watertown prohibit discrimination against county/city employees on the basis of sexual orientation only.

In March 2018, the city of Brookings became the first jurisdiction in South Dakota to enact a comprehensive anti-discrimination ordinance covering sexual orientation and gender identity, banning discrimination against public and private employees, in housing and in public accommodations (such as restaurants, etc.). [28] [29]

In March 2021, Governor Kristi Noem signed a bill into law allowing businesses to deny goods or services to LGBTQ people and others based on the owners' "purpoted religious beliefs". [30] [31]

Bostock v. Clayton County

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda , and in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination on the basis of sex, and Title VII therefore protects LGBT employees from discrimination. [32] [33] [34]

Hate crime law

South Dakota law does not address hate crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation. [35] However, federal law has covered both categories since 2009, when the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama. Hate crimes committed on the basis of the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity can thus be prosecuted in federal court.

In September 2019, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council passed hate crime legislation which protects LGBT and two-spirit individuals, with 14 votes in favor, 2 against and 1 abstention. [36] [37]

Transgender rights

Identity documents

South Dakota allows transgender people to change their legal gender. In order to update a birth certificate, the applicant must submit to the Office of Vital Records a copy of a court order changing their legal name and gender, a copy of the photo ID, an "Application for Birth Record" as well as pay the required fee. The Department of Public Safety will change the gender marker on a driver's license and state ID card upon receipt of a court order certifying the gender change or a signed affidavit from a licensed physician confirming sex reassignment surgery. [38]

Gender-affirming care for minors

In February 2023, a bill passed the South Dakota Legislature to ban gender affirming healthcare for trans people under 18 years old. On February 13, the governor signed the bill into law. [39] [40] [41] [42] Transgender minors will lose access to any puberty blockers or hormones that were previously prescribed to them, as Section 6 of the bill says:

If, prior to July 1, 2023, a healthcare professional has initiated a course of treatment, for a minor...the healthcare professional may institute a period during which the minor's use of the drug or hormone is systematically reduced. That period may not extend beyond December 31, 2023. [43]

The law allows adults to sue their healthcare providers for "injury or damages" caused by receiving gender-affirming care as minors. People can file such lawsuits until age 25, or (if they're over 25) "within three years" of becoming aware that their healthcare professional's "violation" caused "injury or damages". [43]

Three years earlier, on February 10, 2020, a state senate committee had voted down similar legislative proposals, including one that would have criminalized physicians for prescribing hormones and hormone blockers or for performing surgery (unless they were trying to fit an intersex child into the gender binary), [44] [45] and another that would not have made physicians' involvement a crime but would have allowed their patients to sue them if they later felt regret. The committee voted not to pursue it. [46] [47] At that time, similar legislative efforts were underway in Florida, South Carolina, Colorado, Oklahoma and Missouri. [48]

Recognition of students' gender

In March 2016, Governor Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill that would have required transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their birth sex. [49]

On 12 February 2019, the House passed legislation (known as HB 1108) which would have barred public schools up to grade K-7 (12-13 years old) from instructing students on gender identity and expression. [50] [51] However, the bill failed to pass the Senate before it adjourned sine die on March 29, 2019. Human Rights Campaign reported that the "bill would prevent teachers from being able to acknowledge the transgender identity of people they are teaching about as well as prevent them from being able to support students who identify as transgender."

Sports

In March 2021, legislation banning transgender individuals from participating in school sports and athletic teams passed the South Dakota Legislature. Similar laws also passed in Mississippi and Idaho. [52] [53] On March 19, Governor Kristi Noem refused to sign the bill into law, opposing portions of the bill that would ban transgender athletes from competing in college sports, worrying such a ban would cause collegiate sporting organizations, such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to avoid holding games and tournaments in the state. [54] [55] [56] The Governor did however sign an executive order on banning transgender individuals within female sports. [57] The ACLU has threatened a lawsuit in federal court. [58]

In January 2022, another similar "anti-transgender sports bill" was introduced and passed the South Dakota Senate and is awaiting a vote in the South Dakota House of Representatives. [59] In February 2022, a bill went to the Governor's desk and could be either signed into law or vetoed and also a couple of other bills are still awaiting votes within the legislature. An anti-trans lawmaker went so far as to call transgender individuals "terrorists", which caused immediate outrage. [60] [61]

On February 4, 2022 the Governor signed the bill into law - becomes effective July 1, 2022. 10 US states have similar laws or regulations that legally ban transgender individuals from playing sports, athletics and Olympics within South Dakota. [62] [63]

Public opinion

A 2022 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) opinion poll found that 63% of South Dakota residents supported same-sex marriage, while 37% opposed it and 1% were unsure. The same poll also found that 67% of South Dakota residents supported an anti-discrimination law covering sexual orientation and gender identity, while 32% were opposed. Additionally, 62% were against allowing businesses to refuse to serve gay and lesbian people due to religious beliefs, while 38% supported allowing such religiously-based refusals. [64]

Public opinion for LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws in South Dakota
Poll sourceDate(s)
administered
Sample
size
Margin of
error
 % support % opposition % no opinion
Public Religion Research Institute January 2-December 30, 2019 157 ?68%24%8%
Public Religion Research Institute January 3-December 30, 2018 184 ?66%27%7%
Public Religion Research Institute April 5-December 23, 2017 259 ?62%28%10%
Public Religion Research Institute April 29, 2015-January 7, 2016 278 ?67%30%3%

Summary table

Same-sex sexual activity legal Yes check.svg (Since 1976)
Equal age of consent Yes check.svg (Since 1976)
Anti-discrimination laws in employment X mark.svg Although by law it should be protected, the religious freedom laws block its enforcement
Anti-discrimination laws in housing X mark.svg the religious freedom laws block its enforcement
Anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations X mark.svg the religious freedom laws block its enforcement
Anti-discrimination laws in health care X mark.svg the religious freedom laws block its enforcement
LGBT anti-bullying policy in schools and colleges X mark.svg (School districts forbidden from enumerating classes of protected children)
Same-sex marriages Yes check.svg (Since 2015)
Stepchild and joint adoption by same-sex couples X mark.svg the religious freedom laws block its enforcement
Lesbian, gay and bisexual people allowed to serve openly in the military X mark.svg the religious freedom laws block its enforcement
Transgender people allowed to serve openly in the military Yes check.svg (Since 2021) [65]
Intersex people allowed to serve openly in the military X mark.svg (Current DoD policy bans "hermaphrodites" from serving or enlisting in the military) [66]
Right to change legal gender Yes check.svg
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 [22]
MSMs allowed to donate blood X mark.svg / Yes check.svg (Since 2020; 3-month deferral period) [67]

See also

Related Research Articles

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

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Utah have significantly evolved in the 21st century. Protective laws have become increasingly enacted since 2014, despite the state's reputation as socially conservative and highly religious. Utah's anti-sodomy law was invalidated in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, and fully repealed by the state legislature in 2019. Same-sex marriage has been legal since the state's ban was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in 2014. In addition, statewide anti-discrimination laws now cover sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, and the use of conversion therapy on minors is prohibited. In spite of this, there are still a few differences between the treatment of LGBTQ people and the rest of the population, and the rights of transgender youth are restricted.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States are among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of New Hampshire enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people, with most advances in LGBT rights occurring in the state within the past two decades. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in New Hampshire, and the state began offering same-sex couples the option of forming a civil union on January 1, 2008. Civil unions offered most of the same protections as marriages with respect to state law, but not the federal benefits of marriage. Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire has been legally allowed since January 1, 2010, and one year later New Hampshire's civil unions expired, with all such unions converted to marriages. New Hampshire law has also protected against discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1998 and gender identity since 2018. Additionally, a conversion therapy ban on minors became effective in the state in January 2019. In effect since January 1, 2024, the archaic common-law "gay panic defence" was formally abolished; by legislation implemented within August 2023.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Wyoming may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Wyoming since 1977, and same-sex marriage was legalized in the state in October 2014. Wyoming 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. In addition, the cities of Jackson, Casper, and Laramie have enacted ordinances outlawing discrimination in housing and public accommodations that cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

<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 New Jersey</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of New Jersey have the same legal rights as non-LGBTQ people. LGBT individuals in New Jersey enjoy strong protections from discrimination, and have had the same marriage rights as heterosexual people since October 21, 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Georgia (U.S. state)</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Georgia enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. LGBTQ rights in the state have been a recent occurrence, with most improvements occurring from the 2010s onward. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1998, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since 2015, in accordance with Obergefell v. Hodges. In addition, the state's largest city Atlanta, has a vibrant LGBTQ community and holds the biggest Pride parade in the Southeast. The state's hate crime laws, effective since June 26, 2020, explicitly include sexual orientation.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Massachusetts enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. The U.S. state of Massachusetts is one of the most LGBT-supportive states in the country. In 2004, it became the first U.S. state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and the sixth jurisdiction worldwide, after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec.

<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 (LGBT) 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 Hawaii</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Hawaii enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1973; Hawaii being one of the first six states to legalize it. In 1993, a ruling by the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court made Hawaii the first state to consider legalizing same-sex marriage. Following the approval of the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act in November 2013, same-sex couples have been allowed to marry on the islands. Additionally, Hawaii law prohibits discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, and the use of conversion therapy on minors has been banned since July 2018. Gay and lesbian couples enjoy the same rights, benefits and treatment as opposite-sex couples, including the right to marry and adopt.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of North Carolina may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents, or LGBT residents of other states with more liberal laws.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of North Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in North Dakota, and same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples; same-sex marriage has been legal 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 Nebraska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Nebraska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Nebraska, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. The state prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and a subsequent decision of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. In addition, the state's largest city, Omaha, has enacted protections in public accommodations.

<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 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 Alaska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Alaska have evolved significantly over the years. Since 1980, same-sex sexual conduct has been allowed, and same-sex couples can marry since October 2014. The state offers few legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, leaving LGBTQ people vulnerable to discrimination in housing and public accommodations; 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. In addition, four Alaskan cities, Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan, representing about 46% of the state population, have passed discrimination protections for housing and public accommodations.

<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.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2015.

References

  1. 1 2 Mitchell, Hilary. "Transgender advocacy group sues South Dakota for discrimination – and wins $300,000". PinkNews. Retrieved 3 February 2024.
  2. Sabine Lang, Men as Women, Women as Men ISBN   0292777957, 2010
  3. The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States, South Dakota
  4. William N. Eskridge, Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861-2003 (NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 201n, available online, accessed April 10, 2010
  5. Laws of South Dakota 1976, page 227, ch. 158, enacted Feb. 27, 1976, effective Apr. 1, 1977
  6. CNN: 2006 Key Ballot Measures, accessed April 10, 2011
  7. Human Rights Campaign: South Dakota Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Archived 2012-07-25 at the Wayback Machine , accessed April 10, 2011
  8. Liptak, Adam (June 26, 2015). "Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide". The New York Times.
  9. Howard, Adam (May 23, 2014). "Gay couples sue South Dakota to overturn same-sex marriage ban". MSNBC. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
  10. Young, Steve (October 17, 2014). "No quick decision made in S.D. gay marriage lawsuit". Argus Leader. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
  11. "Order on Motion to Dismiss". Scribd.com. U.S. District Court for South Dakota. Retrieved November 14, 2014.
  12. "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment". Scribd.com. U.S. District Court for South Dakota. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  13. "Emergency Motion". Scribd.com. U.S. District Court for South Dakota. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  14. "Plaintiffs' Motion to set an expedited response schedule". Scribd.com. U.S. District Court for South Dakota. Retrieved February 12, 2015.
  15. "Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Vacate". Equality Case Files. Retrieved July 2, 2015.
  16. "Jackley responds to Supremes gay marriage ruling". Capital Journal. June 26, 2015.
  17. "Marty Jackley comments on future of SD after same-sex marriage ruling". KEVN. June 28, 2015. Archived from the original on June 30, 2015. Retrieved July 2, 2015.
  18. AG Jackley say up to counties on issuing licenses Archived 2015-07-03 at the Wayback Machine , accessed July 2, 2015
  19. South Dakota AG: Same-sex marriage ruling effective now, up to counties to issue licenses
  20. Human Rights Campaign: South Dakota Adoption Law Archived 2012-03-11 at the Wayback Machine , accessed April 10, 2011
  21. "South Dakota's equality profile". Movement Advancement Project.
  22. 1 2 "Gestational Surrogacy in South Dakota". Creative Family Connections. Retrieved February 1, 2019.
  23. South Dakota is First State in a Series of Anti-LGBT Bills Advancing Through Legislatures Across the Country
  24. Human Rights Campaign: South Dakota Non-Discrimination Law Archived 2012-07-25 at the Wayback Machine , accessed April 10, 2011
  25. "Victory in Shannon County!" (Press release). Equality South Dakota. April 28, 2009. Archived from the original on May 31, 2014. Retrieved May 25, 2013.
  26. "Municipal Equality Index" (PDF). Human Rights Campaign. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 2, 2013. Retrieved November 21, 2013.
  27. "Human Resources - Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). Minnehaha County. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 30, 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2013. Minnehaha County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of [...] sexual orientation
  28. "Equal Employment Opportunity & Affirmative Action Policy". City of Brookings, SD. Retrieved May 24, 2013.
  29. Brookings Becomes First City in South Dakota to Enact Comprehensive LGBTQ-Inclusive Ordinance
  30. Riley, John (March 12, 2021). "South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signs religious refusal bill allowing denials of service to LGBTQ people". Metro Weekly.
  31. Holmes, Juwan (March 12, 2021). "South Dakota passes "religious freedom" bill that could legalize discrimination". LGBTQ Nation.
  32. Biskupic, Joan (June 16, 2020). "Two conservative justices joined decision expanding LGBTQ rights". CNN.
  33. "US Supreme Court backs protection for LGBT workers". BBC News. June 15, 2020.
  34. Liptak, Adam (June 15, 2020). "Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules". The New York Times.
  35. Human Rights Campaign: South Dakota Hate Crimes Law Archived 2012-07-25 at the Wayback Machine , accessed April 10, 2011
  36. "Native American tribe becomes first to pass hate crime law protecting LGBT people". PinkNews. September 30, 2019.
  37. "The Oglala Sioux Tribe passes hate crime law protecting its LGBTQ citizens". Ict News. September 19, 2019.
  38. South Dakota, National Center for Transgender Equality
  39. "Human Rights Campaign Condemns South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem for Signing Discriminatory Gender Affirming Care Ban into Law". 13 February 2023.
  40. "Human Rights Campaign: South Dakota Lawmakers Turn Their Backs on Trans Kids Once Again". Human Rights Campaign. 9 February 2023. Retrieved 2023-02-14.
  41. Cameron, Kesia (9 February 2023). "SD Senate passes bill prohibiting gender-affirming medical care for minors". Dakotanewsnow.com. Retrieved 2023-02-14.
  42. Sforza, Lauren (2023-02-14). "Noem signs gender-affirming care ban for South Dakota youth". The Hill. Retrieved 2023-02-14.
  43. 1 2 South Dakota Legislature (2023). "House Bill 1080" (PDF). Retrieved 14 February 2023.
  44. Human Rights Watch (2020-01-20). "Lawmakers in the US Unleash Barrage of Anti-Transgender Bills". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  45. Wong, Curtis M. (2020-01-30). "South Dakota House Approves Bill That Would Jail Doctors For Treating Transgender Youth". HuffPost. Retrieved 2020-01-31.
  46. Groves, Stephen (10 February 2020). "Ban on treatments for transgender kids fails in South Dakota". Sioux City Journal. Retrieved 2020-02-12.
  47. Wax-Thibodeaux, Emily (10 February 2020). "In South Dakota, a budding transgender movement is taking on conservative lawmakers — and winning". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  48. Meadow, Tey (6 February 2020). "Restricting care for transgender teens would be a terrible mistake". Washington Post. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
  49. South Dakota governor vetoes transgender bathroom bill
  50. "SDLRC - 2019 House Bill 1108 - House". sdlegislature.gov. Retrieved 2019-02-13.
  51. "South Dakota House Passes Discriminatory Anti-Transgender Bill". Human Rights Campaign. 12 February 2019. Retrieved 2019-02-13.
  52. Raza-Sheikh, Zoya (11 March 2021). "Mississippi and South Dakota pass bills targeting trans youth". Gay Times.
  53. "House Bill 1217". sdlegislature.gov.
  54. Villarreal, Daniel (March 20, 2021). "South Dakota's Republican governor refuses to sign bill banning trans athletes from sports". LGBTQ Nation.
  55. Santoscoy, Carlos (March 22, 2021). "South Dakota Governor Kristi Nowm Won't Sign Transgender Sports Bill". On Top Magazine.
  56. Browning, Bill (March 25, 2021). "Republican governor discovers evangelicals invented cancel culture when they come for her". LGBTQ Nation.
  57. "Movement Advancement Project | Bans on Transgender Youth Participation in Sports".
  58. "South Dakota's governor issues executive orders banning transgender athletes from women's sports". 30 March 2021.
  59. "South Dakota Senate Becomes First Chamber to Pass Anti-Trans Legislation in 2022". 19 January 2022.
  60. "South Dakota Advances First Anti-Trans Bill of 2022 to Governor's Desk as Noem's Chief of Staff Likens Transgender Kids to Terrorists". February 2022.
  61. "South Dakota passes two horrifying anti-trans bills in one fell swoop". 2 February 2022.
  62. "South Dakota signs 1st anti-transgender sports law of 2022". ABC News .
  63. "Gov. Kristi Noem says she's "grateful" to sign the first anti-trans law of 2022". 4 February 2022.
  64. Public opinion on gay and lesbian people by state: South Dakota. PRRI – American Values Atlas.
  65. Baldor, Lolita; Miller, Zeke (January 25, 2021). "Biden reverses Trump ban on transgender people in military". Associated Press.
  66. "Medical Conditions That Can Keep You From Joining the Military". Military.com. 10 May 2021.
  67. McNamara, Audrey (April 2, 2020). "FDA eases blood donation requirements for gay men amid "urgent" shortage". CBS News.