Efforts to move children's and young adult books with LGBTQ content to the adult section of a Northeast Arkansas public library have some local residents concerned about censorship.

At the Jonesboro Public Library, the latest book in a monthslong battle over children's books mentioning sexuality and other themes is "All Boys Aren't Blue," a young adult memoir by George M. Johnson which follows his journey growing up gay and Black.

Valerie Carroll, former library employee, organizer with Citizens Defending the Craighead County Library and a parent, thinks having such stories accessible while young people explore their own identities is crucial.

"When it comes to the library and Arkansas, LGBTQ youth in this area know that the community and the culture is, in a lot of ways, actively hostile to them," Carroll pointed out. "I think it's hugely important that there is some place where a teenager can go to see themselves. And if that place is the library, that's a beautiful thing."

The Jonesboro Library board voted three-to-two against a proposal to move the book to the adult section. "All Boys Aren't Blue" has been removed from libraries in several states, where its critics have argued the subject matter is too explicit, and parents should be the ones to decide if it's appropriate reading for their kids.

Vanessa Adams, director of the Jonesboro Public Library, said she doesn't think the issue will end with the vote to defeat the proposal. She predicts it will likely come up again at next month's board meeting.

"Moving the books is actually a form of censorship," Adams asserted. "And the reason that we hesitate to do that is because that's just the beginning. It's a slippery slope, and we don't know where it would end up. And so, that's what concerns librarians."

Adams said the library hopes to reach a compromise, with plans already in the works to create a focus group to discuss options. She hopes the issue can be resolved in the coming months when the library returns to in-person programming as COVID cases wane.

As Pride Month comes to a close and Disability Pride Month begins, advocates are raising awareness about the intersection of being LGBTQ+ and having a disability.

For many LGBTQ+ Americans, marriage equality came in 2015 when the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges. But for people with disabilities, marriage can impact eligibility for certain Social Security benefits.

Chris Fagan is a self-advocate and president of People First St. Joseph. He said that's an obstacle for people who rely on those benefits.

"I have a boyfriend that is not only my boyfriend, but he is my best friend too," said Fagan. "We have needs also, and we also should be able to marry each other if we want to."

Author Sean Gold, an advocate for the disability community who is nonverbal, echoes the need for fully inclusive marriage equality.

He noted, "We fight for so much change, but with every big issue, even with Roe v. Wade, until we connect with how these issues connect with the disability community, nothing will change."

A bill has been introduced in Congress to eliminate a requirement that adults with disabilities remain single to receive Social Security benefits from a parent's earnings record.

Jessie Eikmann, a grocery store worker and poet from St. Louis, said among people without disabilities, there's often a lot of sexual gatekeeping of those with disabilities and false assumptions.

"They just assume that people like me with disabilities," said Eikmann, "that they really can't decide whether they're queer first of all, which is just silly to me, or that they just don't have sex."

Studies estimate 3 to 5 million LGBTQ+ Americans have a disability, and can face unique challenges - from limited access to fully inclusive health care and community services, to added barriers to employment and disproportionate incarceration.

For instance, 40% of incarcerated women identify as LGBTQ+, and nearly half of women in jail reported a disability.

June is Pride Month, and businesses are showing their support for the LGBTQ community in a number of ways. But some corporations are being called out for also supporting anti-LGBTQ candidates for office.

Ian Morton is the executive director of the Q Center in Portland. He said his community has come a long way from the days when participants in Pride parades couldn't show their faces for fear of retaliation from their employers.

But he added that the hypocrisy of some companies' support this month is disappointing.

"Seeing organizations who are willing to stand against the community that they would purport to serve or to celebrate," said Morton, "makes the LGBTQ+ community very wary of where they put their support, and whether that rainbow flag that goes up for the 30 days - if that's actually meaningful, or if it's just performative."

A report from last year found 25 major corporations that showed support during pride had also given a total of $10 million in donations to support members of Congress who earned a 'zero' rating on the Human Rights Campaign scorecard.

Craig Hill is the client and treasury manager with Beneficial State Bank, which works with the Q Center. He said his bank strives to work in service of social equity and environmental sustainability.

Hill said he thinks it's misleading for companies to hoist rainbow flags and, at the same time, support discriminatory policies at the legislative level.

"Some of the nation's biggest banks, for example, fund anti-LGBTQ+ policies with their political donations," said Hill, "despite publicly supporting those agendas and sponsoring Pride Month events. It's really a form of 'rainbow washing,' if we're being honest."

Hill said people can use websites like Mighty Deposit to find out how their financial institutions are using their money.

Morton said it's helpful to know he's working with companies that align with his own values.

"Having those moments whenever you recognize that the folks you're doing business with actually have concern about your community's wellbeing and want to show up in meaningful ways," said Morton, "that helps folks, especially in the nonprofit sector and in the advocacy sector, to give them the energy to soldier on."

Oral arguments were held this week on an appeal blocking an Arkansas law from going into effect. The law would prevent young people from getting gender-affirming health care.

Act 626 of 2021 banned health care professionals from providing or referring transgender youth for medical care.

The ACLU of Arkansas filed suit against the state, and a federal judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas granted a preliminary injunction last July.

Now, the state is appealing the decision, saying gender-affirming care is experimental and potentially harmful to youth.

Sarah Everett, policy director for the ACLU of Arkansas, said the clients they represent in the case believe this kind of care has been lifesaving.

"Gender dysphoria is a difficult problem to live with as a young person, especially when you add the kind of bullying and discrimination they face on top of that," Everett observed. "Gender-affirming care helps to bring their physical appearance into alignment with their gender identity."

The Arkansas Legislature overrode a veto of the act last year by Gov. Asa Hutchinson. The act would also permit private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for transgender people of any age.

Arkansas was the first state to pass a ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. Since then, an Alabama law has gone into effect and lawmakers in other states have introduced similar legislation. Everett sees the case as a possible litmus test for health care access for transgender youth on a national level.

"We hope that our District Court decision would deter other states from doing the same," Everett stressed. "And we hope that a good decision from the Eighth Circuit will cement the fact that kids have a right to receive this care, not to be discriminated against simply because they're transgender."

U.S. District Court Judge James M. Moody, Jr., who temporarily blocked Act 626 from going into effect, is scheduled to hear the case, Brandt v. Rutledge, this October.