LGBTQ rights in Indiana
Indiana's 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act faced significant backlash from groups which argued it targeted LGBT rights and was later clarified to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.In May 2023, Indiana passed HB 1608, prohibiting classroom instruction on "human sexuality" from kindergarten to third grade and requiring schools to inform parents if a minor student requests a change in name or pronouns.In May 2023, the Governor signed a law prohibiting local governments from enacting bans on conversion therapy, effectively keeping the practice legal statewide.In 1807, the Indiana Territory enacted a criminal code which included a sodomy provision, eliminating the gender-specifics (meaning it would be applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual conduct), reducing the penalty to one to five years' imprisonment, a fine of 100 to 500 dollars, up to 500 lashes and a permanent loss of civil rights.In 1881, the state passed a statute outlawing anal intercourse, fellatio (oral sex) as well as masturbation under the age of 21 (which was labelled "self-pollution") for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.In 1971, the Indiana General Assembly amended the law, removing sodomy from the list of triggering offenses, if consensual and committed with an adult person.[1] In 1967, in a divided 3-2 ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld as constitutionally sufficient an indictment charging the "abominable and detestable crime against nature".Justice Amos W. Jackson dissented, writing that the very language of the statute purporting to define the offense of sodomy, is so indefinite and uncertain that its unconstitutionality follows as certainly as night follows day.Jackson further wrote that he hoped that the incoming legislature will either clarify or abolish this anarchism reminiscent of the heyday of the witch hunts of early colonial times.[9][10] Governor Joe Kernan issued an executive order in 2004 protecting state employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as gender identity and expression.[11] In 2013, Kim Hively filed a lawsuit against the Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana in South Bend, arguing that she was denied promotions and let go from her job because of her sexual orientation.On April 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals ruled in an 8-3 vote that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation via the category of "sex".[14] The counties of Marion,[15] Monroe,[15] Tippecanoe,[16] and Vanderburgh,[17] along with the cities and towns of Anderson,[18] Bloomington,[15] Carmel,[19] Columbus,[20] Crawfordsville,[21] Evansville,[15] Hammond,[22] Indianapolis,[15] Kokomo,[23] Lafayette,[24] Michigan City,[25] Muncie,[20] Munster,[26] New Albany,[27] South Bend,[15] Terre Haute,[20] Valparaiso,[28] West Lafayette,[29] and Zionsville,[20] have ordinances prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.[32] The law's signing was met with widespread criticism by such organizations as the NCAA, Apple CEO Tim Cook, the gamer convention Gen Con, and the Disciples of Christ.[40] In 2005, the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that lesbian partners who agree to conceive a child through artificial insemination are both the legal parents of any children born to them.[42] On June 30, 2016, a federal judge ruled in Henderson v. Box that Indiana must allow same-sex couples to list both their names on their children's birth certificates.The ruling came as a result of a federal lawsuit filed by eight same-sex couples who were unable to list the non-gestational parent's name on the child's birth certificate.However, when a same-sex couple had a child, the state denied that presumption and forced the second partner to undergo an adoption, a "long, arduous and expensive" process.While surrogacy is not specifically illegal in the state and can be practiced, courts will generally refuse to recognize such contracts, so intended parents, including same-sex couples, must complete an adoption application.It banned any gender-affirming healthcare within prisons, specifically using state resources or federal funds for "sexual reassignment surgery to an offender patient."[82] A 2022 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) opinion poll found that 67% of Indiana residents supported same-sex marriage, while 31% opposed it and 1% were unsure.
City offers domestic partner benefits
County-wide partner benefits through
domestic partnership
County or city does not offer domestic partner benefits
Sexual orientation and gender identity with anti–employment discrimination ordinance
Sexual orientation with anti–employment discrimination ordinance
Sexual orientation and gender identity solely in state employment
IndianaStatusGender identityDiscrimination protectionsSame-sex marriage since 2014AdoptionU.S. statesame-sex marriagesexual orientationCivil Rights Act of 1964death penaltysodomyU.S. Supreme CourtBaskin v. BoganJoe KernanMitch DanielsReligious Freedom Restoration ActPublic Religion Research InstituteNorthwest TerritorybuggeryIndiana Territorydollarsanal intercoursefellatioIndiana Supreme CourtcunnilingusIndiana General AssemblySame-sex marriage in Indianadomestic partner benefitsdomestic partnershipBloomingtonCarmelIndianapolisbipartisanGreg BallardLGBT employment discrimination in the United StatesIvy Tech Community College of IndianaSouth BendUnited States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitHively v. Ivy Tech Community CollegeHuman Rights CampaignMarionMonroeTippecanoeVanderburghAndersonColumbusCrawfordsvilleEvansvilleHammondKokomoLafayetteMichigan CityMuncieMunsterNew AlbanyTerre HauteValparaisoWest LafayetteZionsvilleLake CountyFort WayneWhitestownMike PenceTim CookGen ConDisciples of ChristSalesforce.comThe Indianapolis StarPendletonCourt of Appealsartificial inseminationHenderson v. BoxCurtis HillSCOTUSSurrogacyTransgender rights in the United StatesGovernor of IndianaIndiana HB 1608Gender-affirming surgerygender Xdriver's licensesbirth certificateBruce BordersIndiana House of RepresentativesUnited States courts of appealsEric HolcombEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentIndiana HB 1041vetoedhate crimesMatthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention ActUnited StatesGovernorvagueness doctrineordinanceexecutive orderThird genderConversion therapyMen who have sex with menLGBTQ rights in the United StatesWayback MachineJournal and CourierThe Courier-JournalHall, Render, Killian, Heath & LymanIndy StarFederalOne, Inc. v. OlesenExecutive Order 12968Romer v. EvansExecutive Order 13087Lawrence v. TexasDon't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010Violence Against Women ActUnited States v. WindsorExecutive Order 13672Obergefell v. HodgesPavan v. SmithMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights CommissionBostockHarris Funeral HomesAltitude ExpressG.G. v. Gloucester County School BoardExecutive Order 13988Respect for Marriage Act303 Creative LLC v. Elenis