User:Reimers2/sandbox

LGBT political movements in the United States have centered on urban populations. Many organizers believe reform is harder to pass in rural communities who are less tolerant of their lifestyles (Gray 19). It is harder to mobilize queer communities in rural spaces where queer populations are less dense and contributions are harder to find (Gray 20). This has led to a divestment in former rural queer political organizing. Because political activism has been silent in many of these communities, many Americans assume rural queers do not exist, or they only do so briefly before moving to more urban and accepting communities (Jerke 260). The assumption has created a misrepresentation of the U.S. queer population. US Census data shows that 66% of South Dakotan same sex households were located outside of urban areas (Jerke 280). Queer communities exist outside urban areas, although they are generally less visible. A lack of visibility and political attention has left queers more vulnerable to institutional inequalities. Compared to the heterosexual population, they have less access to housing, face more employment discrimination, and have less access to healthcare (Jerke 264). Only 29% of rural same sex households owned homes compared to 84% of married heterosexual couples (Jerke 281). There are generally less community resources and support groups for rural queers as more limited local resources do not allow them to exist (Gray 20). Legislation often neglects rural queer populations leaving them without protection in many courtrooms and causing some to call for updates to current laws (Jerke 260). In a 2006 custody case, a mother found herself unfit to care for her child and relinquished rights to a queer caretaker (Jerke 296). Once the new guardian’s sexuality was discovered on a home visit the court ruled against the biological mother’s request stating “the adoption would not be in the best interest of the child.” The court used rurality in their reason to reject the request citing, “stigma that the child may face growing up in a small, rural town with two women, in whose case she was placed at the age of six, who openly engage in a homosexual relationship,” as its reasoning. The court saw the state of Georgia has a more fit guardian than a homosexual couple (Jerke 297). Despite cases like these, many fights in rural areas are won in state courtrooms. The Iowa Supreme Court struct down the state’s defense of marriage statute which made it one of the first states to allow same sex marriage, affecting the predominantly rural population (Jerke 261). The action though was met with political resistance. The Iowa electorate voted to not retain all three judge. It marked first time in Iowa’s history a judge had not been retained since 1961. Many rural politicians have cited their reluctance to come out in support of same sex marriage for fear of similar political repercussions. Representative Paul Davis, the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Kansas, voted against a constitutional ban on same sex marriage three times in the state legislature, but did not take a definitive stance on the issue in his run for Governor (Lieb and Beaumont). More liberal and urban districts can offer public officials a politically safe place to take stances on issues that are not popular in predominantly rural states. In recent years though the country has seen a shift in national public opinion on LGBT issues which has spread to the rural communities. In 2006, seventy one Wisconsin counties voted in favor of a same sex marriage ban while one county, Dane County, voted against it (Wisconsin Government Accountability Board). Opinion has since overwhelmingly shifted. According to a 2014 poll by Marquette Law School, only 35% of voters in the Green Bay media market, a predominately conservative area, still support the marriage ban compared to 65% of the population in 2006. Across the country, queer visibility has played a critical role in political activism. That strategy though has not been a viable option for many rural queer people Being openly queer can lead to more discrimination and isolation in rural spaces (20 Gray). Rural queers have had to reimagine how to make political and social progress in their communities. New digital media has opened more political options for rural queers. Social media has served as a means to expand local communities and allow rural queers to take part in a larger queer community. Access to other queers’ experiences are available on blogs and websites and provide access to terminology which help queers describe and understand their own experiences (Gray 153). They also offer an authentic narrative as an alternative to the narratives shown in popular media which portray mostly urban queers and represent rural queers as out of place (Gray 140). New media can give rural queers the political tools and connections to make changes in their own communities. Digital spaces though are not isolated from real world hostilities. Rural queers still face intolerance and hate speech on online platforms. In some cases this can lead to censorship and selectively shared parts of rural queers’ experiences (Gray 128). Inequity in access to technology in rural versus urban communities has had some limitation to this strategy (Gray 38). Rural queers ocan find safe spaces their communities, although they look different than queer urban spaces. In Out in the Country: Youth, Media, and Queer Visibility in Rural America, Mary Gray gives examples of rural queer high school students who meet in places such as Wal-Mart and the public library (Gray 134). The gay bars that have been a cornerstone of queer social life in cities are not readily available to rural queers, many of which live in dry counties. They are often though accessible in nearby small cities (Gray 142). Less conventional nearby spaces allow them to be less limited in where and how queer communities form.