Lgbtq Rights: Diversity Law's Evolution

The LGBTQ+ community has a long history of fighting for their rights, with the first documented instance of this occurring in 1924 with the founding of the Society for Human Rights in Chicago. This was the first recorded instance of a gay rights organisation.

In 1950, the Mattachine Society was formed by activist Harry Hay, and was one of the first sustained gay rights groups in the United States. The Society focused on social acceptance and other support for homosexuals.

In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an executive order that banned homosexuals from working for the federal government, claiming they were a security risk.

In 1969, the LGBTQ+ community fought back against police harassment at the Stonewall Inn in New York City. This event is now considered the impetus for the gay civil rights movement in the United States.

In 1973, Lambda Legal became the first legal organisation established to fight for the equal rights of gays and lesbians.

In 1982, the first protections of the rights of LGBTQ+ people at the state or national level were enacted.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage and defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

In 2003, the US Supreme Court struck down the homosexual conduct law, decriminalising same-sex sexual conduct with their opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

In 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII, the federal statute barring sex discrimination in employment, extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as well.

The Stonewall Riots

The Stonewall Inn was owned by the Mafia and catered to an assortment of patrons, popular among the poorest and most marginalised people in the gay community: drag queens, representatives of a newly self-aware transgender community, effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth. Police raids on gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of the situation at the Stonewall Inn and attracted a crowd that was incited to riot. Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening and again several nights later.

The AIDS epidemic

One of the earliest medical clinics treating AIDS patients was run by Dr. Joseph Sonnabend in New York City. By 1985, thousands of people in the United States had died from the disease. The crisis brought attention to the need for LGBTQ+ inclusion in diversity laws and the protection of their rights.

During this time, public opinion towards the LGBTQ+ community began to shift. There was a growing recognition of the need for equal rights and an end to discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. The AIDS epidemic played a crucial role in raising awareness and advocating for change.

The legacy of the AIDS epidemic continues to shape LGBTQ+ activism and the ongoing fight for equal rights and inclusion worldwide. It serves as a reminder of the importance of diversity and inclusion in addressing global health crises and ensuring the protection of vulnerable communities.

The Defense of Marriage Act

The Act's Provisions

The main provisions of the act were as follows:

• Section 1: This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
• Section 2: Powers reserved to the states. No state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
• Section 3: Definition of marriage. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

The Act's Passage

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996, by Congressman Bob Barr and Senator Don Nickles, both members of the Republican Party. It passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities, with bipartisan support. However, about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it. On July 12, 1996, the House of Representatives voted 342-67 to pass the bill, and on September 10, 1996, the Senate voted 85-14 in favor.

Clinton initially criticized the bill as "divisive and unnecessary" but nonetheless signed it into law on September 21, 1996. In a statement, he said that "the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation".

The Act's Repeal

After its passage, DOMA was subject to numerous lawsuits and repeal efforts. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, thereby requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages conducted by the states. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court held that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The ruling required all states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, leaving Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable.

On December 13, 2022, DOMA was fully repealed by the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges

The ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires states to provide due process and equal protection under the law. The Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. The Court found that the fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. The Court also found that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas

The Court's ruling was based on the principle that adults have the right to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. The Court deemed it necessary to reconsider its previous ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which had upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws. The Court in Lawrence v. Texas found that the Bowers Court had failed to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake and that the laws in Bowers and the present case touched upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and the most private of places, the home. The Court held that the liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

The Lawrence v. Texas ruling also addressed the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers, finding that there is no longstanding history in the United States of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. The Court noted that early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. The Court further observed that early sodomy laws were not enforced against consenting adults acting in private and that American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century.

The Lawrence v. Texas ruling also considered the impact of the Texas criminal statute, noting that although the offense was a minor misdemeanor, it remained a criminal offense that carried consequences for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and registration as sex offenders under state law. The Court found that the foundations of Bowers had sustained serious erosion and that there had been substantial and continuing criticism of Bowers in the United States, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects.

The Lawrence v. Texas ruling concluded that the rationale of Bowers did not withstand careful analysis and that individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. The Court held that the Texas statute furthered no legitimate state interest that could justify its intrusion into the individual's personal and private life. The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas was a significant step forward in recognizing the rights of LGBTQ individuals in the United States and paved the way for subsequent rulings that expanded LGBTQ rights, such as Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Frequently asked questions