Executive Summary
Though public opinion on LGBT issues has shifted drastically in the last decade, statewide employment discrimination protections have largely stagnated. In the last five years, no new states have passed laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is currently no federal law that explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, leaving a patchwork of state and local employment protections. The 21 states that do provide legal statewide protections against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation largely cluster in the Northeast and Pacific regions of the United States, leaving most LGBT people in the Midwest, South and Mountain states with limited legal options to address experiences of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace. In the rapidly changing landscape with respect to LGBT equality across the United States, an increasing amount of public focus has begun to shift toward the South and the expansion of acceptance and rights for LGBT people in that region, but less attention has been paid to the Midwest and Mountain states.
This report analyzes social climate, demographics, economic and health indicators among LGBT and non-LGBT people, highlighting increased disparities that occur in the 29 states without state non-discrimination laws inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity (“the non-state law states”) and the South, Midwest and Mountain states. While slightly higher percentages of people identify as LGBT in the 21 states with statewide discrimination prohibitions (“the state law states”), in terms of raw numbers, more LGBT adults live in the 29 non-state law states and more than six out of 10 LGBT Americans live in the South, Midwest, and Mountain states. The divide between the 21 state law states and the 29 non-state law states is consistently an indicator of greater disparities in the non-state law states between LGBT people and their non-LGBT counterparts across economic, family, and health indicators. However, regional variations show that despite increased focus on the South, many of the greatest inequities lie in the Midwest and Mountain states. Key findings from the analyses include the following:
- LGBT Americans in the 29 non-state law states consistently see greater disparities than in the 21 state law states, including in the following areas:
- Social Climate: An LGB social climate index, which measures the level of social acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, found that the 21 state law states have a much warmer climate towards LGB people than the 29 non-state law states, with average index scores of 70 in the state law states and 52 in the non-state law states.
- Economic Vulnerability for African-Americans: African-American LGBT individuals live in higher concentrations in the 29 non-state law states (18%) than in the 21 state law states (12%), making nearly 900,000 African-American LGBT people in those states vulnerable to employment discrimination.
- Household Income: While same-sex couple households enjoy a $14,000 income advantage in the 21 state law states, that shrinks to $5,300 in the 29 non-state law states. In contrast, same-sex couples households with children face an income disadvantage when compared to their different-sex married counterparts with children. That income gap widens from $4,300 in the state law states to $11,000 in the non-state law states.
- Health: LGBT Americans have almost identical health insurance rates as their non-LGBT counterparts in the state law states, but in the non-state law states, LGBT individuals report insurance rates nine percent lower than non-LGBT individuals.
- Adoption: Despite higher parenting rates found among same-sex couples in the 29 non-state law states, rates of adoption are lower among parenting same-sex couples in those same areas. Same-sex parents in the 21 state law states are 57% more likely to be raising an adopted child than same-sex parents in the non-state law states. This is likely reflective of the stigma that pressured LGBT people to have different-sex relationships earlier in life, and social and legal barriers to same-sex adoption in those regions.
- LGBT Americans in the South face increased disparities compared to LGBT people in other regions in the country in the following areas:
- Social Climate: The South has a social climate index score of 55, the lowest regional score in the country.
- Household Income for Parenting Same-Sex Couples: Same-sex couples raising children to have a household income that is nearly $11,000 lower on average than their different-sex married parent counterparts who are raising children.
- Health: More new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) have come from the South than any other region in the country. Southern LGBT individuals also have the lowest insurance rates in the country, with nearly one in four lacking insurance. In contrast, 16% of non-LGBT individuals in the South do not have health insurance.
- At the same time, LGBT people and same-sex couples from the Midwest find themselves facing some of the greatest inequities in:
- Education: LGBT individuals in the Midwest are less likely to have completed a college degree by age 25 than non-LGBT Midwesterners, while LGBT individuals in other
regions of the country tend to have similar or higher levels of education than their non-LGBT counterparts. - Household Income: LGBT individuals in the Midwest are substantially more likely to report having a household income below $24,000 than their non-LGBT
counterparts (35% v. 24% respectively). Same-sex couples have a statistically significant income advantage in all regions of the country, except the Midwest, where the advantage nearly disappears. Among same-sex couples raising children, Midwesterners have a household income nearly $20,000 less than their different-sex couple married parent counterparts. - Food Insecurity: Three out of ten LGBT individuals in the Midwest report not having enough money to buy food. They are 82% more likely to report being food insecure than non-LGBT Midwesterners.
- Education: LGBT individuals in the Midwest are less likely to have completed a college degree by age 25 than non-LGBT Midwesterners, while LGBT individuals in other
- Finally, LGBT people and same-sex couples in the Mountain states face regional differences in:
- Household Income: LGBT individuals in the Mountain states are much more likely to report having a household income below $24,000 than their non-LGBT counterparts (33% v. 22% respectively).
- Education: Though same-sex couples throughout the country show an educational advantage over different-sex married couples, that advantage is the smallest in the Mountain states.
- Food Insecurity: LGBT individuals in the Mountain states report not having enough money to buy food at the highest rate in the country (31%). They are 86% more likely to report being food insecure than non-LGBT individuals in the Mountain states.
- Health: MSM in the Mountain states currently have the highest incidence of HIV in the country at 61.6 new infections per 100,000 MSM. They also have the greatest disparity with the regional population as a whole. The MSM HIV new infection rate is nearly six times
the regional population rate and the MSM HIV prevalence is more than 50 times the regional population prevalence. - Adoption: Same-sex couples in the Mountain states have the lowest adoption rates of same-sex couples throughout the country, even though different-sex married couples in the same region have the highest adoption rate in the country among different-sex married couples.
These findings indicate that both employment protections and regional differences may be impacting the family dynamics as well as the economic, educational, and health realities of LGBT people. While Southern LGBT people and same-sex couples do face disparities compared to their non-LGBT and different-sex married couple counterparts, these analyses found that many of the greatest disparities are found in the Midwest and Mountain states, regions that have had less scrutiny than the South in recent years. Legal and social differences across states and regions are likely both causes and effects of these disparities. It is likely that the social climate of each geographic region has its own assets and challenges to achieving legal and lived equality. Future research into the South, Midwest, and Mountain states in more depth may help illuminate such challenges and assets.