The rainbow Pride flag can once again fly over Bozeman City Hall after commissioners voted Tuesday night to make it an official city flag, sidestepping a Montana state law targeting the controversial symbol.
Four out of five of Bozeman’s commissioners supported the Pride flag, with the lone vote of dissent made by Commissioner Douglas Fischer, who argued that the flag was divisive and threatened to “drive a wedge” into the community.
Bozeman Mayor Terry Cunningham spoke to the commission after hearing more than five hours of intense public comment on the issue, both for and against the resolution. Cunningham said it was clear to him that Bozeman had a responsibility to stand for a “safe, welcoming and diverse community,” and adopting the Pride flag sends that signal.
“Everyone is welcome in Bozeman, and they are welcome under that flag,” Cunningham said.
The resolution declares “the Pride flag and its variants to be official flags of the city of Bozeman” and allows the mayor and city manager to choose when and where to fly the flags on city property. The resolution does not alter or replace the current city flag.
Public comment stretched late into the night as commissioners heard more than 70 people voice their opinions on the issue, with a relatively even split in opposition or support of the flag. City officials reported receiving more than 585 emails on the topic.
Rowan Larson addressed the commission as a new Bozeman resident, the rector of St. James Episcopal Church, and a member of the queer community. Larson said they moved to Bozeman in 2023 and “attitudes have gotten progressively worse,” to the point that the church can no longer fly Pride flags out of fear of retribution.
“We can no longer safely fly the Pride flag at our church because it is a danger to me, personally,” Larson said.
In contrast, openly gay, military veteran Andrew Jefferis said he’d called Bozeman home for 10 years and has never felt targeted for his sexual orientation while in the city.
“I feel like the implementation of this flag would only exist as evidence that the city of Bozeman needs to prove how good it is to its people, when it doesn’t have to,” Jefferis said. “The city is inherently welcoming.”
Ultimately, commissioners chose to support the Pride flag, with Commissioner Emma Bode saying state lawmakers had brought the fight to the city when they targeted the well-known symbol of gay rights, not the other way around.
“We did not start this,” Bode said. “The Legislature has pushed us.”
House Bill 819, passed by Montana’s Legislature in May and signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte, restricts “politically charged symbols on state property,” citing problems with enforcement, legal challenges, divisiveness and problems with neutrality and inclusivity in government.
However, opponents of the bill say it was specifically written to target municipalities that chose to fly the Pride flag in support of Montana’s queer community.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Bozeman City Attorney Greg Sullivan clarified that when the Pride flag was originally flown over city hall in 2021, it was protected as “government speech” under state law, but he added that the law had changed when the Legislature passed HB 819.
In a memorandum to the city commission, Bozeman’s city manager, Chuck Winn, outlined several fiscal concerns related to adopting the flag, writing: “Adopting the Pride flag may draw increased attention to the City’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and related executive orders. This could invite legal challenges or public scrutiny, leading to unplanned legal costs and additional staff time to respond. The increased attention could also lead to closer examination of other City initiatives, potentially complicating federal grant processes if concerns are raised about compliance with executive orders.”
Commissioner Jennifer Madgic asked the city manager to elaborate on the potential political fallout.
“We do not know what effects adopting the Pride flag or flying the Pride flag will have on those opportunities,” Winn answered, adding that Bozeman has applied for federal grants for housing, law enforcement and the fire department, and those grants could be affected by the adoption of the flag.
However, Winn went on to say that he wasn’t aware of any retaliatory measures taken by the state or federal governments against cities, including Missoula, Butte, Boise, and Salt Lake City, that have adopted the Pride flag.
Deputy Mayor Joey Morrison said he suspects lawmakers who have targeted the Pride flag are seeing their suppression efforts thwarted because local governments can easily bypass the legislation.
“This is no workaround; this is complying with the law,” Morrison said. “The law says cities can adopt official flags. Here is the procedure where we can adopt an official flag.”
For Jason Baide, who chairs the civic group Queer Bozeman, Tuesday’s decision to adopt the Pride flag was a big win, but also a defensive act for the community he represents.
“I am surprised by the level of opposition to our existence and some of the hateful comments that came through in this,” Baide told Montana Free Press after the meeting. “There was some harm done to folks,” during the hours of debate heard by the commission, but “we’re going to rally together and celebrate this.”
A lot of states are passing laws that target the LGBTQ+ community — but these 15 are the absolute worst.
Over 1,000 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been proposed across every state legislature in the U.S. over the past two years, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, and 126 have passed into law. Less than two months into the 2025 legislative session, 390 laws targeting LGBTQ+ people have been proposed.
While marriage equality and anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are still guaranteed federally by U.S. Supreme Court rulings (for now), LGBTQ+ people are still concerned about their rights being taken away, especially when only 15 states have “shield laws” protecting access to gender-affirming care and abortion.
Based on laws surrounding marriage, family rights, health care, education, and youth collected by the Movement Advancement Project, here are the 15 worst states for LGBTQ+ people.
Pride Parade in Huntsville, Alabama (October 1, 2022)
Nondiscrimination laws: Alabama does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. Its state code incorrectly defines sex as exclusively male or female, and it prohibits transgender people from using public facilities that align with their identities.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Alabama does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Alabama has a “Don’t Say Gay” law restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in classrooms. It has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities, and it requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services.
Healthcare access and rights: Alabama has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Health insurance companies, including Medicaid, are not required to provide coverage related to gender transition or fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: Alabama’s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, and it has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense.
Arkansas
Danielsen_Photography / Shutterstock.com
3rd annual Pride Walk at Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas (June, 4 2021)
Nondiscrimination laws: Arkansas does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. The state bans cities and local ordinances from passing nondiscrimination laws, and it has law about “adult” performances that could be used to target or restrict drag.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Arkansas does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Arkansas has a “Don’t Say Gay” law restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in classrooms. It has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities, and it requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians.
Healthcare access and rights: Arkansas has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition to minors, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: Arkansas’ hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, and it has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense. It has an HIV criminalization law that may require sex offender registration.
Florida
Chris_Harris / Shutterstock.com
Mourners pay their respects to the fallen at the Pulse Nightclub memorial on the 5th anniversary of the Pulse mass shooting in Orlando, Florida (June 12, 2021)
Nondiscrimination laws: Florida has nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, and public accommodations, but not in credit/lending, health care, nor education. The state prohibits transgender people from using public facilities that align with their identities, and it does not allow updating gender markers on driver’s licenses or birth certificates. It has law about “adult” performances that could be used to target or restrict drag
Marriage equality and parental rights: Florida does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Florida originated the “Don’t Say Gay” laws restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in classrooms. It has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities, and it requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians.
Healthcare access and rights: Florida has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition for all ages, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: Florida’s hate crime laws only encompass sexual orientation, not gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law.
Idaho
Venture Out Media / Shutterstock.com
Rally in support of transgender youth and gender-affirming care in Boise, Idaho (February 24, 2023)
Nondiscrimination laws: Idaho has nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, and public accommodations, but not in credit/lending, education, health care, nor for state employees. Its state code incorrectly defines sex as exclusively male or female.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Idaho does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It has second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, but not confirmatory adoption nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Idaho has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities, and it requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services, though it has protections for LGBTQ+ youth in the Child Welfare System.
Healthcare access and rights: Idaho has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition for all ages, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: Idaho’s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law.
Indiana
Umut Tolga Pehlivan / Shutterstock.com
Indiana University Bloomington Students walking at Indy Pride in Indianapolis, Indiana (June 4, 2008)
Nondiscrimination laws: Indiana has weaker nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, and public accommodations, but not in credit/lending, education, nor health care. The state also has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Indiana has adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity. It has second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, but not confirmatory adoption nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Indiana has a “Don’t Say Gay” law restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in classrooms. It has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities, and it requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians.
Healthcare access and rights: Indiana has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid and state health insurance plans are not required to provide coverage related to gender transition or fertility treatments, but it has trans-inclusive health benefits for state employees.
Criminal justice: Indiana’s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, and it has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense. It has an HIV criminalization law that may require sex offender registration.
Louisiana
Scott Colesby / Shutterstock.com
Southern Decadence Parade march through the French Quarter in New Orleans, Louisiana (September 1, 2024)
Nondiscrimination laws: Louisiana does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. Its state code incorrectly defines sex as exclusively male or female, and it prohibits transgender people from using public facilities that align with their identities. The state also has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Louisiana does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Louisiana has a “Don’t Say Gay” law restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in classrooms. It has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities, and it requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians.
Healthcare access and rights: Louisiana has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Health insurance companies, including Medicaid, are not required to provide coverage related to gender transition or fertility treatments, and state employees do not have trans-inclusive benefits.
Criminal justice: Louisiana’s hate crime laws only encompass sexual orientation, not gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law that may require sex offender registration.
Mississippi
Carmen K. Sisson / Shutterstock.com
A rainbow flag supporting Pride month flies a the Biloxi VA Medical Center in Biloxi, Mississippi (June 5, 2023)
Nondiscrimination laws: Mississippi does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. Its state code incorrectly defines sex as exclusively male or female, and it prohibits transgender people from using public facilities that align with their identities. The state also has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Mississippi does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It has second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, but not confirmatory adoption nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Mississippi has a “Don’t Say Gay” law restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in classrooms. It has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities, and it requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services.
Healthcare access and rights: Mississippi has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition for youth, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: Mississippi’s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law.
Missouri
Ryanzo W. Perez / Shutterstock.com
A view down one of the streets filled with celebrants during Saint Louis PrideFest in Missouri (June 24, 2023)
Nondiscrimination laws: Missouri has weaker nondiscrimination laws in housing, and public accommodations, but not in employment, credit/lending, education, nor health care. The state also has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Missouri’sadoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections only encompass sexual orientation, not gender identity. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Missouri has banned schools and districts from passing nondiscrimination or anti-bullying policies protecting LGBTQ+ students. It has banned trans students from participating in sports based on their identities, but not from using facilities that align with their identities.
Healthcare access and rights: Missouri has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition for all ages, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: Missouri’s hate crime laws encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, though it has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law.
Montana
Cavan-Images / Shutterstock.com
“Say Gay” sign at Missoula Pride in Montana (March 29, 2024)
Nondiscrimination laws: Montana does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending.Its state code incorrectly defines sex as exclusively male or female, and it has a broad “religious exemption” law. The state has also explicitly restricted drag performances, and does not allow updating gender markers on birth certificates
Marriage equality and parental rights: Montana’sadoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections only encompass sexual orientation, not gender identity. It has second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, but not confirmatory adoption nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Montana requires that parents be notified of LGBTQ+ curricula so they can opt out. It has banned trans students from participating in sports based on their identities, but not from using facilities that align with their identities. The state requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians.
Healthcare access and rights: Montana has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Health insurance companies and Medicaid are required to cover care related to gender transition, and there is some coverage for fertility treatments. However, the state has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: Montana’s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law.
Oklahoma
Kit Leong / Shutterstock.com
Pride Parade in Oklahoma (June 26, 2023)
Nondiscrimination laws: Oklahoma does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. Its state code incorrectly defines sex as exclusively male or female, and it prohibits updated gender markers on birth certificates. It also has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Oklahoma does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It has second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, but not confirmatory adoption nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Oklahoma has a weaker version of a “Don’t Say Gay” law that restricts the discussion of “homosexuality” in specific school subjects. It has banned trans students from participating in sports or using school facilities based on their identities. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services, though it has protections for LGBTQ+ youth in the Child Welfare System.
Healthcare access and rights: Oklahoma has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Health insurance companies, including Medicaid, are not required to provide coverage related to gender transition or fertility treatments, and state employees are not permitted trans-inclusive benefits.
Criminal justice: Oklahoma’s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law.
South Carolina
Shuttershock creative
Rainbow flag on a map of South Carolina
Nondiscrimination laws: South Carolinadoes not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. It has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: South Carolina‘sadoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections only encompass sexual orientation, not gender identity. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: South Carolinahas banned trans students from participating in sports based on their identities, but not from using facilities that align with their identities. The state requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services.
Healthcare access and rights: South Carolina has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition for all ages, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers.
Criminal justice: South Carolina‘s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law.
South Dakota
Shuttershock creative
South Dakota state flag with rainbow stripes
Nondiscrimination laws: South Dakota does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. It has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: South Dakota’sadoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. However, it does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: South Dakotahas banned schools and districts from passing nondiscrimination or anti-bullying policies protecting LGBTQ+ students. It has banned trans students from participating in sports based on their identities, but not from using facilities that align with their identities. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services, though it has protections for LGBTQ+ youth in the Child Welfare System.
Healthcare access and rights: South Dakota has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Health insurance companies, including Medicaid, are not required to provide coverage related to gender transition or fertility treatments, and state employees are not permitted trans-inclusive benefits.
Criminal justice: South Dakota‘s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, and it has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense. It has an HIV criminalization law that may require sex offender registration.
Tennessee
evenfh / Shutterstock.com
Pride Parade on Beale Street in Memphis, Tennessee (September 28, 2018)
Nondiscrimination laws: Tennessee does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending. It instead bans cities and local ordinances from passing nondiscrimination laws. State code incorrectly defines sex as exclusively male or female, and it does not allow updating gender markers on driver’s licenses or birth certificates. The state has a broad “religious exemption” law that even allows officials to deny marriage licenses based on their personal beliefs. It has also explicitly restricted drag performances.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Tennessee’sadoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. However, it does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Tennessee requires that parents be notified of LGBTQ+ curricula so they can opt out. It has banned trans students from participating in sports based on their identities and from using facilities that align with their identities. The state requires staff to forcibly out LGBTQ+ students to their guardians. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services, though it has protections for LGBTQ+ youth in the Child Welfare System.
Healthcare access and rights: Tennessee has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition for all ages, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for healthcare providers, and state employees are not permitted trans-inclusive benefits.
Criminal justice: Tennessee’s hate crime laws encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, though it has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense, and it has an HIV criminalization law that may require sex offender registration.
Nondiscrimination laws: Texas has nondiscrimination laws in employment and for state employees, but not in housing, public accommodations, credit/lending, education, nor health care. The state does not allow updating gender markers on driver’s licenses or birth certificates, and it has a broad “religious exemption” law.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Texas does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, confirmatory adoption, nor recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people.
Education and youth policies: Texas has a weaker version of a “Don’t Say Gay” law that restricts the discussion of “homosexuality” in specific school subjects. It has banned trans students from participating in sports based on their identities, but not from using facilities that align with their identities. The state also has a “religious exemption” law for Child Welfare Services without protections for LGBTQ+ youth.
Healthcare access and rights: Texas has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Medicaid is forbidden from providing coverage related to gender transition for all ages, and insurance companies are not required to cover fertility treatments. State employees are not permitted trans-inclusive benefits.
Criminal justice: Texas’s hate crime laws only encompass sexual orientation, not gender identity. It has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense.
Wyoming
Shuttershock creative
Double rainbow against a black sky in Wyoming
Nondiscrimination laws: Wyoming does not have nondiscrimination laws in employment, housing, health care, education, public accommodations, or credit/lending.
Marriage equality and parental rights: Wyoming does not have adoption or foster care nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ parents. It does not have second-parent adoption for unmarried couples, nor confirmatory adoption. It also does not have family leave laws that encompass LGBTQ+ people. However, it does have recognition for parents using assisted reproductive technologies.
Education and youth policies: Wyoming has a weaker version of a “Don’t Say Gay” law that restricts the discussion of “homosexuality” in specific school subjects. It has banned trans students from participating in sports based on their identities, but not from using facilities that align with their identities.
Healthcare access and rights: Wyoming has banned life-saving gender-affirming care for youth, though it permits the discredited and harmful practice of so-called conversion therapy for youth. Health insurance companies, including Medicaid, are not required to provide coverage related to gender transition or fertility treatments.
Criminal justice: Wyoming’s hate crime laws do not encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, and it has not banned the so-called “LGBTQ+ panic” defense.
Dishonorable mentions
BluIz70 / Shutterstock.com
People carry large balloon letters that spell out “Proud” as they walk in the annual pride parade in Atlanta, Georgia (October 15, 2023)
Other states that ranked below average include: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and West Virginia.
Today, a Montana Court struck down SB 99, a 2023 Montana law that categorically bans often life-saving health care for transgender youth. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in Cross v. Montana, holding that SB 99 violates the constitutional rights of transgender youth who are seeking gender-affirming care and the healthcare professionals who are providing that care.
The lawsuit challenging SB 99 was brought by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of Montana. This ruling removes completely the threat hanging over Montana transgender youth and their families that their access to critical medical care would be terminated.
“I will never understand why my representatives worked so hard to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” said Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy. “It’s great that the courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, have seen this law for what it was, discriminatory, and today have thrown it out for good. Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.”
“Today, the court saw through the state’s vitriol and hollow justifications and put the final nail in the coffin of this cruel, and discriminatory, law,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Nora Huppert. “No parent should ever be forced to deny their child access to the safe and effective care that could relieve their suffering and provide them a future. Because Montana’s Constitution protects their right to privacy, transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing that they can continue to thrive.”
“We are very pleased that the Court saw through the State’s unfounded arguments about why gender-affirming medical care should be treated differently from other forms of care,” said ACLU staff attorney Malita Picasso. “The Court recognizes SB 99 for what it truly is, an effort by the State to legislate transgender Montanans out of existence.”
“The Montana Constitution protects the privacy and dignity of all Montanans,” said Akilah Deernose, ACLU-MT Executive Director. “In the face of those protections, cruel and inhumane laws like SB 99 will always fail. Today’s decision should be a powerful message to those that seek to marginalize and harass transgender Montanans.”
In its ruling, the court stated:
“[t]he Court is forced to conclude that the State’s interest is actually a political and ideological one: ensuring minors in Montana are never provided treatment to address their “perception that [their] gender or sex” is something other than their sex assigned at birth. In other words, the State’s interest is actually blocking transgender expression.”
Plaintiffs in the case include Molly and Paul Cross and their 17-year-old transgender son Phoebe; Jane and John Doe joining on behalf of their 16-year-old transgender daughter; and two providers of gender affirming care who bring claims on their own behalf and on behalf of their Montana patients.
On December 11, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction that SB 99 was likely unconstitutional under the Montana state constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits government intrusion on private medical decisions. The ruling rested entirely on State constitutional grounds, insulating transgender adolescents, their families and health care providers from any potential negative outcome at the United States Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the landmark case brought by Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
More information about the case is available here.
Five days after President Donald Trumpdeclared “gender ideology” to be “one of the most prevalent forms of child abuse,” Montana’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives killed a bill that would have enshrined much the same idea into state law by criminalizing parents and medical providers.
Montana Senate Bill 164 would have made it a felony for any adult to help transgender children under 16 to gain access to gender-affirming medical care—including hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries—classifying such help as child endangerment. On Tuesday, House lawmakers voted 58-40 to reject the proposed law, with 17 Republicans joining Democrats to block it from advancing to its final reading.
“I think it’s overly broad,” the lone Republican to speak against the bill, Rep. Brad Barker, said Tuesday. Barker said that while he generally opposes gender-affirming care for trans youth, SB164 was “the wrong approach.”
“I don’t like the thought of criminalizing parents,” Barker added, entreating fellow Republicans to “vote with your conscience.”
The bill carried penalties of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines for any adults, including parents and doctors, who provided children with surgery, puberty blockers, or hormone replacement therapy for the purpose of “altering the appearance” of the child or affirming the child’s gender. If “serious bodily injury” occurred, the maximum punishment was 10 years imprisonment and $25,000 in fines.
“Turning parents and doctors into felons is absolutely not the approach that best serves this state,” Democratic Rep. SJ Howell, the first non-binary person to be elected to the Montana legislature, said on the House floor.
The bill cleared the Senate in February, 30-20, with two Republicans voting against it. In that floor debate, the legislation’s sponsor, Republican Sen. John Fuller, called it a “simple bill” to protect Montana’s children. “The state does have a compelling interest, a very compelling interest, to avoid the sterilization and sexual mutilation of children,” he said. In 2023, Fuller sponsored a law that threatened medical providers’ licensing if they offered gender-affirming care to minors, a law that courtshave blocked while litigation proceeds.
“This bill is not about politics, it’s about safeguarding the health and innocence of Montana youth,” one of SB164’s House supporters, Republican Rep. Braxton Mitchell, said Tuesday. But more than a quarter of members of his own party disagreed, suggesting a potential turning point for the Montana legislature, at least on trans issues.
Tuesday’s vote was the second time this year a large swath of Republicans crossed party lines to block an anti-trans bill. Last year, Montana’s first openly transgender lawmaker, Rep. Zooey Zephyr, said her Republican colleagues often privately bemoan the transphobic culture wars and apologize to her for their votes on anti-LGBTQ legislation.
Even so, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed two anti-trans bills into law last month—a bathroom ban and a law prohibiting trans girls and women from playing on women’s sports teams from kindergarten through college. The bathroom ban has been temporarily blocked. A state law that prohibited trans women from participating in female collegiate sports was ruled unconstitutional in 2022.
The right to privacy is enshrined in the Montana constitution, and state courts have strongly affirmed its application to healthcare laws. Last December, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction on a law that would have made gender-affirming medical care providers vulnerable to licensing board disciplinary proceedings. And last summer, it ruled that a parental consent law for minors seeking abortion was unconstitutional. (In January, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that ruling an unconstitutional infringement on parental rights. The Supreme Court has not decided whether to hear the case.)
If it had passed, SB164 would have become the first law in the country defining gender-affirming care as a form of felony child endangerment. (Child endangerment and abuse fall under different statutes, but both evoke the same myth that gender-affirming care is dangerous for youth.)
Montana, however, wouldn’t have been the first state to direct child welfare workers to investigate families of trans children. In 2022, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services to open child abuse investigations into parents who seek gender-affirming care for their children. That directive remains partially blocked after families of trans children and the LGBTQ advocacy group PFLAG sued.
A judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a Montana law that restricts transgender people’s use of bathrooms in public buildings.
The measure, which Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed into effect last week, threatened to deprive transgender people of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law, Montana District Court Judge Shane Vannatta ruled. The law prevents people from using restrooms in public buildings that do not align with the sex they were assigned at birth.
The five people who sued over the law were likely to prevail, Vannatta added in his ruling.
The new law “is motivated by animus and supported by no evidence that its restrictions advance its purported purpose to protect women’s safety and privacy,” Vannatta wrote.
The judge’s order will be in effect at least until an April 21 hearing on whether it should continue to be blocked while the lawsuit moves ahead.
Gianforte spokesperson Kaitlin Price said the governor will defend the law “and the privacy and safety of women and girls.”
“We’re not surprised to see far-left activists run to the courts to stop this common sense law,” Price said in an emailed statement. “A man shouldn’t be in a women’s restroom, shouldn’t be in a women’s shower room and shouldn’t be housed in a women’s prison.”
The American Civil Liberties Union praised the ruling.
“Today’s ruling provides enormous relief to trans Montanans across the state. The state’s relentless attacks on trans and Two Spirit people cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny by the courts,” said a statement by Alex Rate, ACLU of Montana’s legal director.
The law passed this year despite opposition from Democrats who worried it would complicate daily life for two fellow lawmakers who are transgender and nonbinary. They included Rep. Zooey Zephyr, a Missoula Democrat who in 2023 was silenced and sanctioned by her Republican colleagues for comments she made on the House floor.
The law would require public buildings including the state Capitol, schools, jails, prisons, libraries and state-funded domestic violence shelters to provide separate spaces for men and women. It defines the sexes based on a person’s chromosomes and reproductive biology, despite a recent state court ruling that declared the definitions unconstitutional.
The order wasn’t unexpected, bill sponsor Republican Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe said in an emailed statement.
“I am thankful that there is a team of Montanans devoted to protecting women’s spaces from men who desire to invade them,” said Seekins-Crowe.
At least a dozen other states already have variations of bathroom bans on the books, many directed at schools. Even more states, including Montana, have passed laws to ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender children and keep trans girls out of girls sports.
Montana’s law allows people to sue a facility if it does not prevent people from using restrooms or changing rooms that do not align with their sex assigned at birth. They can recover nominal damages, generally $1, and the entity could be required to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.
Transgender people in Montana can no longer use bathrooms in public buildings that do not align with their sex assigned at birth after Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed new restrictions into law Thursday.
The law, which takes effect with its approval, requires public buildings including the state Capitol, schools, jails, prisons, libraries and state-funded domestic violence shelters to provide separate spaces for men and women.
It defines the sexes in state law based on a person’s chromosomes and reproductive biology, even as a district court ruling earlier this year declared the definitions unconstitutional.
The new law also declares that there are only two sexes, male and female, going against a judge’s 2024 ruling that struck down that same definition.
Under the law, transgender people cannot use public restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping areas that align with their gender identity. The law does not explain how people in charge of public facilities should verify someone’s sex.
Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, the Republican sponsor, said it was not meant to be exclusionary but to preserve safe spaces for women.
A transgender man who has undergone a medical transition to develop more masculine features such as facial hair, muscle definition and a deeper voice is now required by law to use the women’s restroom.
Republican lawmakers swiftly approved the measure despite vocal opposition from Democrats who worried it would complicate daily life for two fellow lawmakers who are transgender and nonbinary. Among them was Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the Missoula Democrat who was silenced and sanctioned by her Republican colleagues in 2023 for comments she made on the House floor.
Zephyr warned it would embolden some to police another person’s gender in public, which she said could create hostile situations for everyone.
The law allows people to sue a facility for not preventing transgender people from using a certain restroom or changing room. They can recover nominal damages, generally $1, and the entity could be required to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.
In a shocking turn of events, Republican House representatives in Montana decided to cross the aisle and vote against two anti-transgender bills, following powerful speeches delivered by transgender Reps. Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell.
President Donald Trump has made his opposition to LGBTQ+ rights very clear, and as a result, Republicans and even some Democrats have felt emboldened to push anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment. Republican legislators in numerous states have proposed bills targeting trans people, and GOP-dominated states like Montana are no exception.
On March 6, day 47 in Montana’s 69th Legislature, lawmakers debated nearly 250 bills, including ones targeting the trans population, which Republican representatives largely supported, with some notable exceptions.
House Bill 675, sponsored by Rep. Caleb Hinkle (R), would ban drag performances and Pride parades in Montana. Hinkle proposed it in response to a previous drag ban he sponsored being struck down by the courts after it was used against a trans woman who was not a drag artist to prevent her from speaking at a library event.
To circumvent this ruling, Rep. Hinkle proposed granting individuals the private right to sue drag performers rather than relying on state enforcement. Hinkle called being transgender “a fetish” during committee hearings.
Rep. Zooey Zephyr (D) took to the floor and gave an impassioned speech in response.
“At its very core, drag is art. It is very beautiful art. It has a deep history in this country, and it is important to my community. You know, if you are a woman in this body wearing a suit today, you are in some way challenging gender norms that existed long ago,” she said.
“There were three-article-of-clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender, they could stop you, arrest you,” she continued. “It was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ+ bar that led to the Stonewall riots, one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history.”
She added, “The sponsor … said this bill is needed… and I quote his words… ‘because transgenderism is a fetish based on crossdressing.’ And I am here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to walk him to school, that’s not a lascivious display. That is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after… not obscene shows in front of children; we have the Miller test for that, we have laws for that. This is a way to target the trans community, and that is in my opinion, and in the speaker’s own words.”
In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Sherry Essmann (R) rose to Rep. Zephyr’s defense, chastising the bill’s sponsor for using parental rights as his argument for bringing this bill into law, pointing out that such a bill would impede on the rights of parents such as Rep. Zephyr, and that representatives who support parents’ rights should vote against this bill.
In Rep. Essmann’s own words, “I’m speaking as a parent and a grandmother. And I’m very emotional because I know the representative in seat 20 is also a parent. No matter what you think of that, she is doing her best to raise a child. I did my best to raise my children as I saw fit, and I’m taking it for granted that my children are going to raise my grandchildren as they see fit,”
Following these two speeches, 13 Republican representatives voted against the bill.
This turn of events would’ve been remarkable in its own right, but this wasn’t the only occurrence of aisle-crossing on trans issues this session.
House Bill 754, if passed, would’ve had even more devastating consequences. The measure would’ve allowed the state to remove transgender children from their parents.
Rep. SJ Howell (D) took the floor to argue against the passing of the bill. Rep. Howell, who is non-binary, pointed out the vagueness of what the bill defines as a transgender child as it could mean a child who does anything that defies conventional gender norms, such as having a certain haircut or trying out a new nickname.
“Transitioning gender is not defined in this bill… so what does that mean? Maybe it means, as the sponsor said, surgery or medical treatment. Maybe it means therapy, mental healthcare. Maybe it means a kid who gets a haircut and a new set of clothes. Maybe a name change… a legal name change, or someone who wants to try out a different name… a strict reading of this bill could include all of that,” Howell said.
Rep. Howell further drove their point that the decision for the state to intervene in the removal of a child is a serious matter that holds a great deal of weight. They urged lawmakers to keep that in mind and consider the real consequences.
“Put yourself in the shoes of a [Child Protective Services] worker who is confronted with a young person, 15 years old maybe, who is happy… healthy… living in a stable home with loving parents, who is supported and has their needs met? And they are supposed to remove that child from their home and put them in the care of the state? We should absolutely not be doing that,” they said.
The bill went to a vote; this time, the Montana Republican party was fully fractured on the matter with 29 Republican representatives voting nay, killing the bill with a majority vote from all representatives.
When discussing the results of these two decisions, Rep. Zephyr took to Bluesky, where in a post she typed, “These kind of votes are born out of trans representation in government.”
Nine states are now seeing Republican efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized marriage equality in all 50 states. This is a new trend; state Republican lawmakers have been focused on rolling back trans rights since 2020.
In five of the states — Idaho, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota — Republican lawmakers have introduced resolutions calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. Those measures have been passed by at least one chamber of the state legislature in Idaho and North Dakota.
In the four other states – Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas – Republican legislators have introduced bills to privilege heterosexual marriages, with some of the states referring to a new institution called “covenant marriage,” which would be limited to heterosexual couples. The point there, according to the sponsor of one such bill in Oklahoma, is to create inequality in marriage rights between opposite- and same-sex couples and invite a legal challenge that could be taken to the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
Two justices on the Supreme Court have openly stated that they want to overturn Obergefell, and the Court has moved to the right since 2015. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer were all in the Obergefell majority but have either retired or passed away in the last ten years. Only one was replaced by a Democratic president. It is not clear if there are the five votes needed to protect marriage equality on the Court if it were to take up a test case.
Thirty-five states have amendments or statutes banning same-sex marriage, and most would likely go into effect if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell. Because of the 2022 federal Respect for Marriage Act, though, state and federal governments would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
“It’s good to anticipate things that could happen in order that we do our best job preparing ourselves,” Jenny Pizer, chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, told LGBTQ Nation last month. “The bottom line for people is that, if there are things that you can do to secure your relationships, your family status and to take other protective measures, please do those things. Don’t be lulled into complacency by our informed and reasonably expert speculation about what may happen.”
A new study identifies a rugged group of states — Wyoming, Utah, Montana and Idaho — as the most affordable destinations for American retirees.
Clouds rise above the mountains of the Teton Range as seen from Grand Teton National Park in Jackson Hole, Wyoming on August 15, 2022.
If those places sound cold, consider some warmer states that rank nearly as high in cost of living and other affordability measures: Virginia (5th on the list), New Mexico (7th), Tennessee (10th), Georgia (12th) and South Carolina (15th).
According to a study conducted by Seniorly, a senior-living site, states were ranked based on eight financial factors important to seniors who are planning to retire on a budget. It is worth noting that the study did not consider lifestyle or climate factors typically associated with retirees moving to warmer states in the South. Instead, it focused on housing costs and living expenses, taking into account recent inflation and retirement account volatility.
Census figures indicate that over 200,000 Americans relocated to new states for retirement in 2022. The most popular destinations were Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia. While Florida and Arizona have long been favored retirement destinations, it’s worth noting that they have become more crowded and less affordable in recent years.
Despite the desire for warmer climates, a significant majority of older Americans, approximately three-quarters, express a preference to stay in their current homes and communities, as revealed by an AARP survey. This sentiment is often driven by a sense of attachment to the places where they grew up and raised their families, as well as the difficulty associated with changing healthcare providers.
As retirees evaluate their options, they are increasingly considering housing costs and living expenses, recognizing the impact of inflation and market volatility on their retirement savings. While Florida and Arizona continue to be popular choices, retirees are also exploring alternatives that offer a balance of affordability and quality of life.
Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, alone on the House floor stands in protest as demonstrators are arrested in the House gallery, Monday, April 24, 2023, at the state Capitol in Helena, Mont. Montana’s Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill Friday, April 28, to ban gender-affirming medical care for young transgender people — the battle over which ended with the removal of a transgender lawmaker from the House floor.
Montana is among the growing number of states that have implemented laws to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth, despite strong objections from families who argue that this care is vital for their children’s well-being.
The debate surrounding Montana’s bill gained national prominence when Republican lawmakers took action against Representative Zooey Zephyr for her comments, deeming them personally offensive. House Speaker Matt Regier went as far as prohibiting Zephyr from speaking on the House floor until she issued an apology. To date, Zephyr has not apologized.
This incident reflects the contentious nature of the debate surrounding transgender rights and highlights the challenges faced by lawmakers advocating for inclusive policies. The refusal to allow Zephyr to speak serves as a demonstration of the polarization and resistance to progressive views on transgender issues within certain political circles.
As discussions surrounding gender-affirming care continue, it remains crucial to foster open dialogue that respects diverse perspectives while prioritizing the well-being and rights of transgender youth and their families.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.