Public Duty and Private Prejudice: Sexualities Equalities and Local Government

Abstract

Rather than critiquing social institutions and practices that have historically excluded them, as did earlier social movements in the 1960s and 1970s, since the 1990s the politics of sexuality has increasingly been about demanding equal rights of citizenship. These citizenship demands have, at least to a degree, been answered via a raft of recent legislation in the UK including the Adoption and Children Act 2002, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004, and by associated changes in policy making and practice that emphasize 'Equality and Diversity'. In this article we consider how the implementation of sexualities equalities policies is related to processes of privatisation and individualisation. This is illustrated by using sexualities equalities work in local government as a case study to indicate how both processes of change and resistance are aided by these processes. The article draws on findings from an ESRC funded study of LGBT equalities initiatives in local government in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which examined the views of those who now have a public duty to implement recent legislative and policy shifts and are obliged to develop equalities initiatives concerning 'sexual orientation' and gender reassignment.

Seeking to Adopt in Florida: Lesbian and Gay Parents Navigate the Legal Process

“…In turn, attorneys sometimes outright refused to work with them; or, they agreed to work with them, but demonstrated such alarming ignorance of the laws that participants quickly realized that they would not be successful in helping them to adopt, and promptly searched for a new lawyer. Such confusion illustrates the "implementation gap" that often occurs in the wake of legislative change-particularly change affecting LGBTQ rights (Richardson & Monro, 2013). The struggle of searching for a legal professional who is knowledgeable about, and willing to work with, same-sex couples can serve as a painful reminder of one's minority status and the experience of being perpetually devalued by society (Meyer et al, 2011).…”

“…Some participants, however, reported negative experiences with agencies or social workers. A few were refused services, which represents a direct and potentially harmful manifestation of societal heterosexism, which can create minority stress (Meyer et al, 2011) and serves as an unfortunate example of how the implementation gap may manifest after changes in policy occur (Richardson & Monro, 2013). Several encountered social workers who seemed to purposefully compromise their written home study in an effort to prevent them from adopting.…”

“…For some participants, distrust of the legal system may have perpetuated their anxiety about being refused legal recognition as a parent insomuch as it led them to believe there was still a possibility of their adoption being turned down by a judge. Attorneys and agencies that were uninformed of the recent change in the law may have also contributed to the general confusion of when and where the law was being enforced (Richardson & Monro, 2013). In reality, adoptions and secondparent adoptions by lesbians and gay men are being granted throughout the state of Florida; yet, as we see, some participants did not believe this was truly the case (Stutzman, 2011).…”

“…This confusion may be directly related to what some researchers have described as an "implementation gap" that occurs between policy and practice when legislative changes occur that impact LGBTQ rights. This is often evident when changes are made at the institutional level, yet little change is seen in everyday practice (Richardson & Monro, 2013). Given that currently only 22 states offer same-sex couples some degree of legal relationship recognition, and only 22 states (and the District of Columbia) allow same-sex couples to petition to jointly adopt (Freedom to Marry, Inc., 2013;HRC, 2013), the possibility of future legislative change related to marriage and adoption rights for sexual minorities remains (Willetts, 2011).…”

Bisexuality

“…Within workplace contexts, processes of heterosexualised domesticisation and desexualisation may render bisexual people unable to express their identities in the ways that heterosexual people can (for example being able to talk about partners at work). This leads to bisexual marginalisation and erasure, and it may be linked to organisational anxieties about non-heterosexualities generally (see Richardson and Monro, 2013). The erasures of bisexuality within the public sphere of mainstream employment may fuel the relegation of (certain) visible bisexual behaviours to sex industry or dating website spaces, which means that people may have to pay if they wish to access them.…”