Cracking the Facade: Analyzing Ohio's "Don't Say Gay" Legislation as Disguised Discrimination Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2025-01-01
Sydni L Porter
{"title":"Cracking the Facade: Analyzing Ohio's \"Don't Say Gay\" Legislation as Disguised Discrimination Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.","authors":"Sydni L Porter","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Ohio State Legislature is among the growing nationwide trend in attacking LGBTQ+ rights. Chief among these is Ohio House Bill 8, which claims to limit the types of content children encounter in schools. While the drafters cite this noble intent, the bill's actual impact further harms queer students and teachers, who already bear heavier mental health burdens due to such legislation and its societal implications. This type of legislation recently originated in Florida, where it was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022 and garnered national media attention. As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a near-identical bill in January 2025, the outcomes observed in Florida inform the constitutional analyses for the Ohio constituency. As in Florida, Ohio's bill is left intentionally vague, banning \"gender ideology\" and \"sexual concepts\" in classrooms or constraining them to what is deemed age-appropriate without providing sufficient guidelines for what may be acceptable. The disparate impact of this legislation is rooted entirely in gender classifications, triggering intermediate scrutiny. The bill's ambiguity creates a chilling effect on students' First Amendment rights by restricting the ability to express gender non-conformity without the school disclosing such changes to their families, disregarding the child's safety, and limiting the type of instruction children may receive in the classroom. Consequently, this compels schools to treat LGBTQ+ students and age-appropriate content differently from their heteronormative counterparts, inherently relegating those with queer identities as second-class citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"38 2","pages":"267-303"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Ohio State Legislature is among the growing nationwide trend in attacking LGBTQ+ rights. Chief among these is Ohio House Bill 8, which claims to limit the types of content children encounter in schools. While the drafters cite this noble intent, the bill's actual impact further harms queer students and teachers, who already bear heavier mental health burdens due to such legislation and its societal implications. This type of legislation recently originated in Florida, where it was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022 and garnered national media attention. As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a near-identical bill in January 2025, the outcomes observed in Florida inform the constitutional analyses for the Ohio constituency. As in Florida, Ohio's bill is left intentionally vague, banning "gender ideology" and "sexual concepts" in classrooms or constraining them to what is deemed age-appropriate without providing sufficient guidelines for what may be acceptable. The disparate impact of this legislation is rooted entirely in gender classifications, triggering intermediate scrutiny. The bill's ambiguity creates a chilling effect on students' First Amendment rights by restricting the ability to express gender non-conformity without the school disclosing such changes to their families, disregarding the child's safety, and limiting the type of instruction children may receive in the classroom. Consequently, this compels schools to treat LGBTQ+ students and age-appropriate content differently from their heteronormative counterparts, inherently relegating those with queer identities as second-class citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses.

打破表象:分析俄亥俄州的“别说同性恋”立法是第一和第十四修正案下的变相歧视。
俄亥俄州立法机构是攻击LGBTQ+权利的全国性趋势之一。其中最主要的是俄亥俄州众议院第8号法案,该法案要求限制儿童在学校接触到的内容类型。虽然起草者引用了这一崇高的意图,但该法案的实际影响进一步伤害了酷儿学生和教师,由于此类立法及其社会影响,他们已经承受了更沉重的精神健康负担。这种类型的立法最近起源于佛罗里达州,该州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯于2022年签署成为法律,并引起了全国媒体的关注。正如俄亥俄州州长迈克·德万(Mike DeWine)在2025年1月签署了一项几乎相同的法案一样,在佛罗里达州观察到的结果为俄亥俄州选区的宪法分析提供了依据。与佛罗里达州一样,俄亥俄州的法案故意含糊不清,禁止在课堂上使用“性别意识形态”和“性概念”,或者将其限制在被认为适合年龄的范围内,而没有提供足够的指导方针,说明哪些是可以接受的。这项立法的不同影响完全植根于性别分类,引发了中间审查。该法案的含糊其辞,限制了学生表达不符合性别的能力,而学校不顾孩子的安全,不向家人透露这种变化,并限制了孩子在课堂上接受的教育类型,这对学生根据第一修正案享有的权利产生了寒蝉效应。因此,这迫使学校将LGBTQ+学生和适合年龄的内容与异性恋的学生区别对待,从本质上说,根据第十四条修正案的平等保护和实质性正当程序条款,将那些具有酷儿身份的人视为二等公民。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信