Pride Month Ends, But the Anxiety Continues: How Anti‑LGBTQ+ Policies Fuel Minority Stress
Today marks the end of Pride Month. But as the rainbow flags come down, what lingers isn’t confetti — it’s concern.
This year, Pride hit differently. I mostly stayed home this past weekend — cathartically and anxiously thinking about and working on this piece. Maybe that’s age. Maybe it’s fatigue, grief, or just plain vigilance. But even from home, I was paying attention. And what I saw made me feel both hope and unease. People showing up, showing out, refusing to be erased — that was beautiful. But at the same time, the air felt heavier. We’re navigating a climate that’s turning colder, one policy at a time.
As a psychologist who works with all kinds of people, including LGBTQ+ individuals — and as someone who studied mental health policy before training in clinical science — I think about this a lot. What happens when the environment around you changes? When the law sends a message that your identity is debatable — or worse, unacceptable?
When Policies Become Stressors
Decades of research tell us that LGBTQ+ folks don’t experience higher rates of anxiety or depression because of who they are — but because of how society treats them. Minority stress theory helps us understand this. It distinguishes between distal stressors (external events like discrimination, exclusion, or anti-LGBTQ+ legislation) and proximal stressors (internal processes like shame, fear, or concealing one’s identity).
But here’s the thing: distal stressors don’t stay “out there.” They get “under the skin.” If a law tells you you’re not safe — that your care can be denied, or that your existence is up for debate — your nervous system listens. Your body responds. The stress doesn’t stop at the policy page. It moves inward: into rumination, hypervigilance, depression.
Modern research also tells us that we need to think beyond individuals. It’s not just about trauma or rejection in personal relationships. It’s about the systems and policies that shape our day-to-day lives. This is called structural stigma — the societal-level forces that shape whether people feel affirmed or erased.
New Study Shows the Damage
In a June 2025 study published in an APA journal (Translational Issues in Psychological Science), researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign examined how state laws impact anxiety and depression — especially among LGBTQ+ people.
Using survey data from over 800,000 adults across all 50 states, Todd and colleagues found that two types of laws were particularly influential:
• Religious exemption laws, which allow individuals or businesses to refuse services to LGBTQ+ people based on religious beliefs
• Nondiscrimination laws, which protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination in areas like housing, employment, and education
The results are sobering.
States with more religious exemption laws saw higher rates of anxiety and depression, particularly among LGBTQ+ adults. Nondiscrimination laws, in contrast, were protective — linked to lower rates of these conditions. These effects held even after controlling for age, gender, race, education, and political climate.
In short: laws that discriminate make people sicker. Laws that protect people help them stay well.
And the researchers didn’t stop at individual-level data. They framed their findings using structural stigma, writing:
“Policy is one form of structural stigma that contributes to the mental health of sexual minorities.”
Words Matter: Naming the Prejudice
When I was in graduate school, I used to wrestle with language—almost as much as I do now! Words like homophobia didn’t always capture what I was seeing. One scholar I admired, Gregory Herek, argued that sexual prejudice was more accurate. His point? That “phobia” implies an irrational fear — like fear of spiders — and doesn’t account for the disgust, rejection, and systemic nature of anti-LGBTQ+ bias.
I agreed with him. And yet, I still think fear plays a part. Fear of the unknown. Fear of what can’t be controlled. And that fear, when it festers, gets weaponized. It turns into policies. Into prejudice. Into shame. Into laws that try to legislate people out of existence.
June 2025 Wasn’t Just Pride — It Was a Warning
If this month taught us anything, it’s that Pride isn’t a shield. Not when the highest court in the land is upholding bans on gender-affirming care. Not when the White House won’t say “Pride Month.” Not when public institutions are being pressured to censor or sideline LGBTQ+ content under the banner of “parental rights.”
Earlier this month, I was out at a public event and someone smiled and said, “Happy June.” Not “Happy Pride.” Maybe they were trying to be polite. Maybe they were scared. Either way, it struck me — we’re already self-censoring. Pulling back. Editing ourselves in public spaces. That’s how structural stigma operates. Quietly, subtly, but with real psychological cost.
A Moment of Joy — and a Reminder
But this month wasn’t all fear. Something powerful happened too: June 26, 2025 marked the 10-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. That landmark ruling recognized marriage as a fundamental right — and extended it to same-sex couples under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It was a time for celebration:
🌈 Over 820,000 married same-sex couples now live in the U.S. — double the number before Obergefell
💰 Marriage equality has brought billions in economic activity and millions in tax revenue
📈 Public support for same-sex marriage remains strong — a majority of Americans still believe in the freedom to marry
💬 Many LGBTQ+ couples shared how legal marriage improved their mental health, security, and connection
And it was a time for reflection. Because even as we celebrated, there was a current of unease. If Roe v. Wade can fall, what’s next? Advocates are watching closely for the slow, strategic erosion of marriage rights — much like we’ve seen with LGBTQ+ curriculum restrictions, gender-affirming care bans, and the silencing of Pride acknowledgments.
So yes, the Obergefell anniversary was a high point. But it was bittersweet. It reminded us how far we’ve come — and how fragile progress can be when the political winds shift.
Mental Health and Minority Stress Aren’t Abstractions
None of this is theoretical. I see the impact in my work. Clients grappling with fear, sadness, confusion. Parents trying to raise queer and trans kids in states that are turning hostile. Adults who feel like the rights they fought for are slipping.
This is the cost of structural stigma. And it shows up in medical records, in suicide hotlines, in sleepless nights.
Pride Might Be Over — But the Fight Isn’t
So here we are — June 30. The streamers are down. The parades are over. But the work continues.
We need to remember that mental health is political, whether we want it to be or not. When laws tell people they don’t belong, those people suffer. When courts sanction discrimination, anxiety rises. When we stop naming Pride out loud, closets grow.
That’s not fearmongering — it’s research.
The good news? Awareness gives us power. When we understand how policy affects mental health, we can push for laws that protect rather than harm. We can create schools, clinics, workplaces, and communities that affirm people’s full humanity — not just in June, but year-round.
Because Pride is not just a celebration. It’s a survival strategy. It’s a resistance to shame. And it’s a reminder that our existence is not up for debate.
We are still here. And we’re still fighting.
Reciepts
American Psychological Association. (2025, June 18). APA denounces Supreme Court’s decision upholding state bans on gender-affirming care. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2025/06/gender-affirming-care
GLAAD. (2025, June). ALERT Desk Report. https://assets.glaad.org/m/517666e6160db065/original/2025-GLAAD-ALERT-Desk-Report.pdf
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
The Maine Wire. (2025, June 18). Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Ban on Transgender Care for Minors. https://www.themainewire.com
Todd, N. R., Nguyen, D. M., Blackburn, A. M., & La, R. (2025). Associations between state policies and sexual minority mental health disparities. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 11(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000431
Washington Blade. (2025, June 4). White House has ‘no plans’ to recognize Pride month. https://www.washingtonblade.com
Williams Institute. (2025, June). Over 820,000 married same-sex couples live in the U.S., double the number before Obergefell. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/marriage-obergefell-press-release
Williams Institute. (2025, June). The economic impact of marriage equality 10 years after Obergefell. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/econ-impact-obergefell
