The Russian Federation became the subject of heated controversy in 2013 when President Vladimir Putin approved a bill amendment banning “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.”  This was met with international condemnation and backlash, and it was strongly criticized in most of the United States media (Aravosis).  And with this public scrutiny over Russia’s backwards policy came increased attention in the United States media toward similar laws right here in our country.  Currently, eight states have so-called ‘no promo homo’ laws on their books, which vary somewhat in their exact language and prohibitions, but which all have the same basic meaning: sex education shall not promote homosexuality (#DontEraseUs; “No Promo Homo Laws” | GLSEN).  Arizona is one of those states.  And since the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling last June in Obergefell v. Hodges (which acknowledged same-sex marriage as a constitutional right), it seems as though people think that the fight for LGBT+ rights in the United States is over.  But that is clearly not the case.

In Arizona specifically, the no promo homo law is found in the revised statutes section of Title 15 Education and states that:

  No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.

Each of these three provisions is problematic in its own way and each has different consequences for youth in Arizona schools, which I will discuss in the next few paragraphs.  But it is worth noting here that some states have even more problematic no promo homo laws than Arizona; for example, Texas’ requires sex education teachers to instruct students that homosexuality is illegal in the state, which is completely false information (#DontEraseUs). (Incidentally – and ironically – Texas was the state involved in the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which declared Texas’ law criminalizing homosexual sex unconstitutional.) Nevertheless, Arizona’s law is obviously more relevant to the lives of Arizonans than are similar, more egregious laws in other states.

The no promo homo law serves as a contradiction to other laws and policies in Arizona that protect the rights of LGBT+ people.  Arizona has actually been surprisingly progressive in terms of LGBT+ rights, given how staunchly conservative the state’s voters are (and therefore are not exactly supportive of the LGBT+ community).  Though, to be fair, sexual orientation has tended to be more protected than gender identity and gender expression in the state.  But the protections for sexual orientation in Arizona have been significant nonetheless.  For example, same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 2014 – nine months prior to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.  Same-sex sexual activity was legalized in the state two years prior to Lawrence v. Texas.  The state includes sexual orientation as a protected group covered by its hate crimes law and several Arizona cities have anti-discrimination ordinances.  The point is that the message of Arizona’s no promo homo law conflicts with the overall message of inclusion that some Arizonans have been hearing for a while now.

The language of the law is undeniably discriminatory and prejudiced, and not just toward gay and lesbian students.  It is important to note that although these no promo homo laws specifically refer to homosexuality and “do not address transgender students or gender nonconformity”, these groups are also subject to the discrimination of these policies (McGovern).  This is because these identities and expressions fall under the umbrella of non-normativity within the school context, which are “often confused for, or marked as, an indication of non-normative sexual orientation or expression” (McGovern).  So all Arizona youth that fall under the LGBT+ spectrum (including but not limited to: asexual, transgender, genderqueer, questioning, intersex, and pansexual students) are vulnerable to the detrimental effects of the no promo homo law.

The first and second provisions of the statute describe homosexuality as a “life-style,” which is problematic for several reasons.  By describing homosexuality as a “lifestyle”, the state is implying that it is a choice, and, the reasoning goes, if it is a choice then why would anyone choose to be homosexual?  Furthermore, if being gay is a choice, then that choice can be changed or reversed, which prompts things such as conversion therapy, wherein gay patients are subjected to pseudoscientific attempts to eliminate their homosexuality in ways that have been roundly discredited as dangerous and ineffective (American Psychiatric Association).  And the first provision’s banning of promoting homosexuality in schools.  Additionally, the second provision is problematic in part because it forbids educators from saying that being LGBT+ is at best neutral and at worst negative.  And this provision is also problematic because it refers to homosexuality as an “alternative life-style [emphasis added],” which relegates LGBT+ identities, orientations, and expressions to the margins, reaffirming those positions as secondary, weird, and a choice.

The third provision is perhaps the one that has the most potential to passively harm LGBT+ students in Arizona.  Arizona’s sex education policy is abstinence-only, meaning that students can be taught that the only way to avoid the negative effects of sexual activity is to refrain from engaging in it altogether.  It is illegal for a state educator in Arizona to teach students about contraceptives such as birth control pills or condoms, and educators must teach that sex should only occur after marriage.  Of course, marriage was available only to opposite-sex couples in the state up until about a year and a half ago, meaning that this form of sex education implicitly sent the message that same-sex people should not have sex at all.  So the third provision of the no promo homo law just adds yet another obstacle blocking LGBT+ students from learning about safe sex.

In addition to all of this, even though Arizona’s no promo homo law is included under the state statute regarding sex education, it can actually be interpreted to affect other areas of the LGBT+ schooling experience.  According to the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which dedicates a page of its website to this subject,

While these [no promo homo] laws generally are written to apply only to sexual health education, they are often vague [and] can be misapplied by schools to limit other parts of the curriculum, school events and programs, and even extracurricular activities (“No Promo Homo Laws” | GLSEN).

So not only can no promo homo laws be used within the context of sex education, they can also be manipulated to affect other aspects of education.  GLSEN also explains the harmful effects that these laws can have on LGBT+ youth, plainly stating that, “[t]hese laws foster an unsafe school atmosphere” (“No Promo Homo Laws” | GLSEN).  GLSEN goes on to say that, based on their 2009 National School Climate Survey, students living in states with these laws are more likely to hear homophobic remarks from school staff, are less likely to report incidents of harassment and assault to school staff, and are less likely to report having support from educators.  Moreover, when incidents occur and educators do intervene, they do so less effectively in these states (“No Promo Homo Laws” | GLSEN).

It is clear from these and other findings that no promo homo laws can negatively impact LGBT+ youth in profound ways, and something must be done to rectify this problem.

Several weeks ago, Senator Martín Quezada, a Democrat representing Phoenix, attempted to do just this, by authoring a bill (SB 1019) for the Arizona state legislature that would have overridden the no promo homo portion of the revised statute in Title 15 (Abbott).  However, Senator Sylvia Allen, a Republican representing Snowflake, declined to put SB 1019 on the legislative agenda by the deadline, which means that the bill cannot move any further until the next legislative session where it can be re-introduced.  Senator Allen is the chairperson of the Arizona State Senate Education Committee and her appointment to this position last December stirred up some controversy at the time (Rau).  The controversy arose from the fact that Allen is a Creationist who has said in a past committee hearing that the Earth is 6,000 years old (Rau).  Additionally, she has said suggested that attendance of weekly church services should be required of all American people (Rau).  Thus, when she was announced as the head of the Education Committee, some Arizonans decried the decision because they felt that her beliefs and opinions conflicted with the very idea of ‘education.’
Senator Allen’s questionable political and personal opinions lead me to believe that her decision to not put SB 1019 on the agenda was not accidental or coming from an objective standpoint.  But whatever one’s personal feelings are toward homosexuality and the LGBT+ community in general, it cannot be denied that Arizona’s no promo homo benefits no one and even actively harms people.  This law is outdated, discriminatory, and harmful – it must be repealed in order to more effectively ensure the safety and civil rights of LGBT+ youth in the state of Arizona.

 
Works Cited
Abbott, Gabrielle. "Time Running Low as Supporters of Sex Ed Inclusivity Bill Voice Support - Cronkite News - Arizona PBS." Cronkite News. Arizona PBS, 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016. .
American Psychiatric Association. Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies).American Psychiatric Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2016. .
Aravosis, John. "Growing International Backlash against Russian Anti-gay Olympic Threat." AMERICAblog News Gay RSS. N.p., 26 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2016. .
"#DontEraseUs: FAQ About Anti-LGBT Curriculum Laws | Lambda Legal." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2016. .
Instruction on acquired immune deficiency syndrome; department assistance, Arizona Revised Statutes Title 15 Education 15-716 (1996 through 1st Regular Session 50th Legislature. Available at .
Matthews, Ryan. "The Most Discriminatory Laws You Have Never Heard Of." JURIST. Ed. Adam Shirer. N.p., 6 Jan. 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2016. .
McGovern, Ashley E. "When Schools Refuse to "Say Gay": The Constitutionality of Anti-LGBTQ "No-Promo-Homo" Public School Policies in the United States." Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 22.465 (2012): 465-90. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
""No Promo Homo" Laws | GLSEN." GLSEN. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2016. .
Rau, Alia Beard. “Creationist Sylvia Allen to Lead Arizona Senate Education Panel.” Azcentral. N.p., 23 Dec. 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.