Often polls show how the public is leaning on a particular issue, but other times they reveal how the respondents and sometimes even the pollsters have the issue all wrong. Gallup released a poll last week about where the public stands on what makes a person gay. Apparently they’ve been asking the question for some time, and there’s been a pretty even split between “nature” and “nurture” for the past 10 years:

Gallup uses the poll to conclude that people who believe same-sex orientation is inherent are more likely to support LGBT equality. However, the question has two serious flaws that actually contribute to the continued miseducation of the public. First of all, same-sex orientations and opposite-sex orientations form through the same process, so by asking about gays and lesbians as though they are different reinforces the belief that they actually are somehow different. Secondly, the answer to the question is not either/or; as scientists best understand sexual orientation, it is a “complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.”

Most importantly, the answer to the question should be moot, and as a result, Gallup’s interpretation of the result are perhaps not entirely accurate. Given that sexual orientation is influenced by both biology and environment, how people answer the question does not actually address whether they think it is a choice or “inherent.” Sexual orientation is influenced by the environment and it is inherent, so the answer to this false dichotomy does not paint the whole picture.

Continued open discussion of the reasons for sexuality prove only to be an outlet for doubters to continue making their unfounded case. Like evolution and the age of the earth, scientists are no longer debating the causes of sexual orientation, so it should be up to journalists to be educating, not casting more doubt.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) acknowledged that Americans — particularly young people — now favor marriage equality. But Smith attributed the growing acceptance to Hollywood movies and Obama’s human rights policy — which, Smith claimed, is now dominated by the “homosexual agenda”:

There’s something of a disconnect, perhaps because of the way Hollywood has portrayed the homosexual agenda. Both Obama and [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton are pushing the gay-rights agenda in all of our foreign policy. It is integrated into our human-rights reporting and human-rights data calls.

Polling indicates that the increased visibility of gay people in the media has, in fact, increased tolerance for gay relationships. More Americans now personally know someone who is gay or lesbian and are thus far less supportive of policies that strip family members or friends of their rights and liberties. This growing acceptance has translated into domestic, and yes, foreign policy. As President Obama indicated in his LGBT pride declaration, “Because we recognize that LGBT rights are human rights, my Administration stands with advocates of equality around the world in leading the fight against pernicious laws targeting LGBT persons and malicious attempts to exclude LGBT organizations from full participation in the international system.”

So yes, gay people are more prevalent in Hollywood and gay causes are now priorities in foreign policy. But this is not because of any “disconnect.” The growing cultural and political acceptance of gay people reflects the changing values of modern society. That, after all, is what democracy is all about. [HT: On Top Magazine]

Trans Veteran Autumn Sandeen joins others in protesting Don't Ask, Don't Tell at the White House

Though a number of other Ivy League schools have considered expanding ROTC on campus with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell imminent, Dartmouth College is not among them. Dartmouth has allowed ROTC to operate on campus through Norwich University, but it’s an incredibly small program with currently only 13 enlistees.

Though the program’s director, Sgt. Maj. Levi Bennett, is advocating for it to grow, Dartmouth’s LGBT adviser, Pam Misener, is hesitant:

Any changes, especially growing and expanding changes, should happen only after we see the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy fully repealed. I personally would not support any such [expansionist] moves until we know how the repeal is going to look.

Conversations about any changes have not referenced the fact that even after DADT’s repeal is certified, the military will still discriminate against people who are transgender. As at many of the other schools who have invited ROTC back to campus, such discrimination is in violation of Dartmouth’s nondiscrimination statement, which includes protections for gender identity or expression.

As New Yorkers continue to push for marriage equality, state Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz (D) continues to vitriolically smear gays and lesbians with lies and stereotypes while proclaiming himself righteous in his opposition to equality. Tony Varona has translated and analyzed a recent interview Díaz gave that was rife with lies and attacks. Here are some excerpts with debunks:

CLAIM: ”And the bill as written… the bill does not exclude… as it is written specifically… does not exclude either churches or ministers specifically. It does not say it in the bill. [...] They would come to my church so that I would refuse to marry them, and so that they could sue me, and mount a discrimination case.”

FACT: This is certifiably false. The bill that has been proposed for the Assembly (A07600) is less than two pages long, and includes this provision at the bottom:

PROVIDED THAT NO CLERGYMAN, MINISTER OR SOCIETY  FOR  ETHICAL  CULTURE LEADER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE WHEN ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION.

Any argument made about marriage equality infringing on religious liberty is thus a lie.

CLAIM: “For me, no, I would vote no because [...]it is against nature… and it just should not exist.”

FACT: Contrary to Díaz’s subjective assessment, the American Psychological Association describes sexual orientation in the following way:

Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.

Any argument distorting sexual orientation as a choice or “unnatural” is thus a lie.

CLAIM: “My [lesbian] granddaughter arrived (to the May 15th anti-marriage equality protest march he organized) and I hugged her… this is not about hate. [...] We are the ones who are being persecuted, and that Christians are persecuted. And that the Christian religion is persecuted when we cannot do the things that we want to do.”

FACT: While it’s true Erica Díaz was in attendance at the rally, she was there leading the counterprotest. She was quoted that day as saying, “I started crying a little bit because they don’t believe we’re people.”

CLAIM: “No, I’m just comparing for you how one can one day change his mind, because I one day was, and you keep wanting to find the twists and turns, and tomorrow the blogs will be saying, look at what he said, look at how he compared… but what I am saying is that I was homosex… look, now you have me all [mixed up]. I was a drug addict and left the military with a drug addiction. And one day, my mind changed and I no longer was a drug addict. But I was not born a drug addict. I was not born a drug addict.”

FACT: Wow. Not only does Díaz inaccurately portray sexuality as a choice, he has the gall to compare a person’s capacity to love to an unhealthy addiction. Sexual orientation cannot be changed — in fact, it’s harmful to try to change it — and all major scientists agree that the appropriate response is affirmation.

Díaz’s distortions and smears are the epitome of homophobia. The clear animus in his statements should indicate that he has no real concern for religious liberty. His goal is the continued oppression of the LGBT community, motivated by stigma and bigotry.

Yesterday, in his third LGBT Pride proclamation, President Obama noted the accomplishments of his administration: the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the first White House Conference on Bullying Prevention, and the “steps to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans” in the federal government. AmericaBlog’s Joe Sudbay observes that Obama did not mention same-sex marriage, DOMA or even civil unions. “The President is behind the curve and getting further behind every day,” Sudbay writes. “He knows which way the trendline is moving.”

Fair enough. But even as Obama falls short of real equality, his proclamations do represent a substantial advancement of LGBT issues in the mainstream of American politics. As Dana Rudolph wrote last year, President Clinton was the first president to recognize pride in 1999, but he waited until the third year of his second term. Obama issued his in the very first year of his administration and offered a much more progressive take on LGBT equality:

Clinton, writing after six years in office, noted in his first proclamation that his administration had banned sexual orientation-based discrimination in the federal civilian work force and in the granting of security clearances. Obama’s 2010 proclamation speaks not of non-discrimination policies for federal employees but of the need for equal benefits. (Obama has added gender identity to the discrimination protections for federal employees, but did not mention that in either of his Pride proclamations.) [...]

Clinton, who in 1996 had signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), did not mention marriage equality or federal relationship recognition. Obama, however, spoke in his first proclamation of the need to enact civil unions and in his second of the need to repeal DOMA.

Clinton’s proclamations also overlooked the military’s ban on gay and lesbian servicemembers, which he had promised to repeal, only to settle on the compromise later known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” [...]

Clinton’s proclamations did not speak of HIV/AIDS…Obama, in his 2009 Pride proclamation, did mention the ongoing need to fight HIV/AIDS. [...]

Clinton also made no mention of adoption rights for LGBT people, whereas Obama in both proclamations said we must work to ensure such rights. In 2010, he made a point of recognizing LGBT mothers and fathers.

Read Obama’s third LGBT Pride proclamation here.