Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Americans face a fragmented policy landscape across the country. Some states and localities have taken the lead and adopted policies to protect LGBTQ citizens, while others have sought to undermine LGBTQ equality. As such, the rights of LGBTQ citizens are very much dependent on the politics of states they reside in. In this article, we argue subnational innovation on LGBTQ inclusive policy is a result of national policy gridlock. We also examine the state-level political factors driving the adoption of policy protections for LGBTQ citizens. We conclude that LGBTQ policies are driven by local political context and illustrate the dynamic nature of fragmented federalism in America.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.. 2018. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Theories of the policy process, edited by WeibleChristopher M.SabatierPaul A., 253–300. Boulder, CO: Westview.
4.
BishinBenjamin G.FreebournJustinTetenPaul. 2020. The power of equality? Polarization and collective mis-representation on gay rights in Congress, 1989–2019. Political Research Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/1065912920953498
5.
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020).
6.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
7.
BrewerPaul R.2008. Value war: Public opinion and the politics of gay rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
8.
CaugheyDevinWarshawChristopher. 2018. Policy preferences and policy change: Dynamic responsiveness in the American states, 1936–2014. American Political Science Review112 (2): 249–66.
9.
FloresAndrewHermanJodyMalloryChristy. 2015. Transgender inclusion in state non-discrimination policies: The democratic deficit and political powerlessness. Research & Politics2 (4): 1–8.
GoelzhauserGregKoniskyDavid M.. 2020. The state of American federalism 2019–2020: Polarized and punitive intergovernmental relations. Publius: The Journal of Federalism50 (3): 311–43.
12.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.2001. Policy diffusion as a geographical expansion of the scope of political conflict: Same-sex marriage bans in the 1990s. State Politics & Policy Quarterly1 (1): 5–26.
13.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.2010. Out and running: Gay and lesbian candidates, elections, and policy representation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
14.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.MeierKenneth J.. 1996. The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of the conflict. Journal of Politics58 (2): 332–49.
15.
HicksWilliam D.WeissertCarolSwansonJeffreyBulman-PozenJessicaKoganVladimirRiverstone-NewellLoriBunchJaclynEinsteinKatherine LevineGlickDavidDaleyDorothy M.FiskJonathan M.TaylorJami K.Haider-MarkelDonald P.LewisDaniel C.. 2018. Home rule be damned: Exploring policy conflicts between the statehouse and city hall. PS: Political Science & Politics51 (1): 26–38.
KrimmelKatherineLaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2016. Gay rights in Congress: Public opinion and (mis) representation. Public Opinion Quarterly80 (4): 888–913.
19.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
20.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.. 2009. Gay rights in the states: Public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review103 (3): 367–86.
21.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.. 2012. The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science56 (1): 148–66.
22.
LewisDanielFloresAndrewHaider-MarkelDonald P.MillerPatrickTadlockBarryTaylorJami. 2017. Degrees of acceptance: Variation in public attitudes toward segments of the LGBT community. Political Research Quarterly70 (4): 861–75.
23.
LewisDanielTaylorJamiDiSarroBrianJacobsmeierMathew. 2014. Is transgender policy different? Policy complexity, policy diffusion, and LGBT nondiscrimination laws. In Transgender rights and politics: Groups, issue framing, and policy adoption, edited by TaylorJamiHaider-MarkelDonald, 155–88. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
24.
LindamanKaraHaider-MarkelDonald P.2002. Issue evolution, political parties, and the culture wars. Political Research Quarterly55 (1): 91–110.
25.
McAdamDoug. 1994. Culture and social movements. In New social movements: From ideology to identity, edited by LarañaEnriqueJohnstonHankGusfieldJoseph, 36–57. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
26.
MezeySusan. 2020. Transgender policymaking: A view from the states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism50 (3): 494–517.
27.
MooneyChristopher Z.LeeMei-Hsien. 1995. Legislating morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science39 (3): 599–627.
28.
MoreauJulie. 2020. Idaho’s transgender sports ban challenged in federal court. NBC News.
29.
Movement Advancement Project. 2020. Snapshot: LGBT equality by state: State data table. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps (accessed September 1, 2020).
30.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
31.
PrestonJulia. 2009. Obama lifts a ban on entry into U.S. by H.I.V.-positive people. New York Times.
32.
RanneyAustin. 1976. Parties in state politics. In Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis, edited by JacobHerbertVinesKenneth, 82–121. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
33.
RimmermanCraig. 2015. The lesbian and gay movements: Assimilation or liberation?, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
34.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
35.
RosenbergGerald N.2008. The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change?, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
StolbergSheryl. 2008. In global battle on AIDS, Bush creates legacy. New York Times.
37.
StrykerSusan. 2008. Transgender history. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
38.
TaylorJami K.Haider-MarkelDonald P.RogersBenjamin. 2019. Toward a new measure of state-level LGBT interest group strength. State Politics & Policy Quarterly19 (3): 334–50.
39.
TaylorJami K.LewisDaniel C.. 2014. The advocacy coalition framework and transgender inclusion in LGBT rights. In Transgender rights and politics: Groups, issue framing, and policy adoption, edited by TaylorJamiHaider-MarkelDonald, 108–32. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
40.
TaylorJami K.LewisDaniel C.Haider-MarkelDonald. 2018. The remarkable rise of transgender rights. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
41.
TaylorJami K.LewisDaniel C.Haider-MarkelDonaldFloresAndrewMillerPatrickTadlockBarry. 2018. Public opinion about transgender people and policies. In The remarkable rise of transgender rights, edited Taylorby Jami K.LewisDaniel C.Haider-MarkelDonald P., 61–86. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
42.
TaylorJami K.LewisDaniel C.JacobsMatthew L.DiSarroBrian. 2012. Content and complexity in policy reinvention and diffusion: Gay and transgender-inclusive laws against discrimination. State Politics & Policy Quarterly12 (1): 75–98.
43.
TaylorJami K.TadlockBarryPoggioneSarah. 2013. State LGBT rights policy outliers: Transsexual birth certificate amendment laws. The American Review of Politics34 (Winter): 245–70.
44.
TaylorJami K.TadlockBarryPoggioneSarah. 2014. Birth certificate amendment laws and morality politics. In Transgender rights and politics: Groups, issue framing, and policy adoption, edited by TaylorJami K.Haider-MarkelDonald P., 252–72. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
45.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013).
46.
WaldKennethCalhoun-BrownAllison. 2010. Religion and politics in the United States, 6th ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
47.
WilsonAngelia. 2013. Why Europe is lesbian and gay friendly (and why America never will be). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
