Bill Overview
Title: LOVE Act of 2022
Description: This bill offers a formal apology from Congress for encouraging policies at the Department of State, such as the Lavender Scare, which resulted in the wrongful termination of at least 1,000 people for alleged homosexuality, and addresses related issues. The State Department must (1) review all employee terminations that occurred as a consequence of the Lavender Scare to identify those who were wrongfully terminated, and (2) issue a public report on the findings. The State Department must establish an independent Reconciliation Board to contact any employee (or a family member of a deceased employee) wrongfully terminated during the Lavender Scare and offer to change the employee's record to reflect this finding. The board must accept and review petitions from former employees who believe they were terminated due to sexual orientation. The State Department must establish a board of senior-level officials to address issues that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) Foreign Service employees and their families face. The board must report on improving State Department policies to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics. The State Department must report on (1) countries that do not issue spousal visas for Foreign Service employee spouses due to sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics; and (2) recommendations for State Department responses, such as eliminating visa reciprocity for such countries.
Sponsors: Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by discriminatory practices against LGBTQI people in Foreign Services globally
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill acknowledges past wrongs against individuals terminated during the Lavender Scare, which targeted U.S. government employees for alleged homosexuality.
- It establishes a reconciliation process to contact surviving wrongfully terminated employees or their family members for record correction.
- It addresses issues still faced by LGBTQI employees in the Foreign Service, aiming to improve current anti-discrimination policies.
- Therefore, it impacts primarily those wrongfully terminated, current LGBTQI Foreign Service employees, and their families.
- The board and reports mentioned will likely influence policy frameworks internationally, affecting how U.S. addresses visa reciprocity based on sexual orientation discrimination.
Reasoning
- The Lavender Offense Victim Exoneration Act of 2022 primarily benefits a specific historical cohort and their families, so its direct impacts will mainly be confined to around 1,000 individuals or families affected by the Lavender Scare.
- Impact on current and future LGBTQI Foreign Service employees aims to prevent discrimination and improve workplaces, indirectly benefiting wider society by enhancing inclusivity and equality norms.
- Budget constraints suggest that not all perceived wrongs can be immediately redressed, meaning the impact is heavily prioritized towards those most directly affected by historical terminations.
- Given the historical nature of the core issue and ongoing nature of related LGBTQI challenges, benefits may manifest more qualitatively in terms of justice, reconciliation, and gradual policy improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's long overdue for the government to acknowledge the wrongs done to LGBTQ people.
- This act is a form of justice for many families; it's an acknowledgment that means a lot.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Foreign Service Officer (Boston, MA)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to see institutional support for LGBTQ individuals. This act could lead to better workplace policies.
- However, real change takes time, and I'm cautiously optimistic about its implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOVE Act is a good step forward but it's just one part of a much-needed broader strategy.
- It sets a positive precedent for how other departments might address historical and current discrimination.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a great case study for the impact of legislative acknowledgment on social issues.
- I hope it inspires further steps in both public and private sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Historian (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Historical apologies are important; they validate the experiences of those who suffered.
- I'm hopeful it will lead to more honest and inclusive records.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Stay-at-home parent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing measures are being put in place makes me feel better about my child's future in a government role.
- Still, I worry about how enforcement of these policies will manifest.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 74 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to finally see some acknowledgment of past injustices.
- I only wish something like this had come sooner.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The LOVE Act could be a key influence in how institutions address past wrongs and current biases.
- I'm optimistic about the systemic change it signals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
HR Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although it doesn't directly affect me personally, it's a significant milestone for many families I know.
- I'm interested in how HR policies might evolve in the wake of this act.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This represents progress, albeit slow for many who've waited decades for acknowledgment or redress.
- From a legal perspective, it could help shape future anti-discrimination policy formulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4500000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5500000)
Year 3: $3500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $4500000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Public acknowledgment and reconciliation of past discriminatory policies have symbolic and policy implications but limited direct financial impact.
- Administrative and operational costs are the primary financial components of this policy.
- The scale of direct impact is limited to the capacity of the independent boards and the individuals they address.