The World Health Organization has issued new guidelines for reducing the spread and impact of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender people. In addition to prevention and treatment interventions such as condom use, behavioral interventions, Internet-based strategies, and anti-retroviral treatment, the guidelines take a human rights approach to ending stigma and discrimination against MSM and transgender people:

Long-standing evidence indicates that MSM and transgender people experience significant barriers to quality health care due to widespread stigma against homosexuality and ignorance about gender variance in mainstream society and within health systems. Social discrimination against MSM and transgender people has also been described as a key driver of poor physical and mental health outcomes in these populations across diverse settings. In addition to being disproportionately burdened by STI and HIV, MSM and transgender people experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, smoking, alcohol abuse, substance use and suicide as a result of chronic stress, social isolation and disconnection from a range of health and support services.

The guidelines are the first to directly address the the epidemic among gay men and transgender people that continues the world over, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Central America. Just last week, the United Nations affirmed LGBT rights as human rights and similarly condemned violence and discrimination against LGBT people. A comprehensive international response to anti-LGBT stigma and misinformation could potentially save millions of lives.

A judge in Wisconsin ruled yesterday that domestic partnerships are not substantially similar to marriages, but this is good news for the LGBT community. The decision originates from a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Family Action, which claimed that the state’s 2009 domestic parternship registry violated a 2006 constitutional amendment banning any legal recognition of relationships “substantially similar” to marriage. Judge Daniel Moeser made it clear that domestic partnerships don’t come close:

MOESER: The state does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage. Moreover, domestic partners have far fewer legal rights, duties, and liabilities in comparison to the legal rights, duties, and liabilities of spouses.

Though they may be a far cry from marriage equality, Wisconsin’s domestic partnerships allow same-sex couples to visit each other in hospitals, make end-of-life decisions, and inherit each other’s property. The partnerships do not guarantee any ability to share benefits, and same-sex couples still don’t have the right to adopt.

Using a tactic borrowed from President Obama, Gov. Scott Walker (R) abandoned any defense of the registry last month, deeming it unconstitutional. Fair Wisconsin has since intervened to continue the defense. It could be a long haul, as Wisconsin Family Action has committed to appealing the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

A somewhat pessimistic Sen. Tom Duane (D-NY) — a lead sponsor of same-sex marriage legislation — appeared on Michelangelo Signorile’s SiriusXM’s show this afternoon and said he would be more confident of the success of the state’s pending same-sex marriage bill if it received another public endorsement from a Republican. “I think it’s important that, whether or not a vote happens…I do think it’s important now that in advance we do have more more Republicans publicly saying that they are going to vote in the affirmative,” he said, adding that senators who provide private assurances may fold at the last minute. “There is still a lot to be done to get this bill over the finish line,” he stressed.

Asked about reports that marriage equality is not yet on the Senate agenda, Duane responded, “I’m loath to make any predictions about what can and cannot happen in Albany. [...] Deals or agreements that are made can often fall apart and so I think we just keep our eyes on the prize.” Listen to selections from the interview:

Fox News’ Sean Hannity went after former head of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools Kevin Jennings last night, arguing that the “openly gay” Jennings was not qualified for his position because he “advocated promoting homosexuality in our schools” and wrote the forward to a book called “Queering Education.” Jennings — the former head of GLSEN — stepped down from the administration earlier this month to run a national nonprofit group called Be the Change, but not before publicly declaring that his critics “completely failed.”

Hannity took umbrage at this suggestion and hosted a panel to regurgitate his debunked smears against Jennings:

HANNITY: All we did here for example on HANNITY was report all of the news that America was not hearing anywhere else. Like how the former schoolteacher and founder of Glisten, had advocated promoting homosexuality in our schools. Or how we’ve been accused of not reporting an incident where an underage student told him that he was having sex with an older person. It was later revealed that the student claimed that he was 15 at the time. Which is the legal age of consent in Massachusetts where the incident occurred. What about how Jennings reportedly told members of the religious right to quote, “drop dead” in a 2000 speech or how he cursed God in his 2006 memoir. Mama’s boy preacher’s son by writing, quote, “what had he done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt, squat, screw you buddy, I don’t need you around anymore.” And lastly, he wrote the forward to a book called, “Queering Elementary Education.”

Watch a compilation, including Hannity’s use of Tony Perkins to accuse Jennings of spreading homosexuality:

Click over here and here for Media Matters’ thorough debunk of Hannity’s claims.

Former Utah Gov. and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman (R) announced this morning that he is running for president. In advance of that announcement, a campaign consultant from the California chapter of The Log Cabin Republicans, the conservative gay-rights advocacy group, circulated a fundraising letter seeking to capitalize on Huntsman’s support for civil unions while he was governor.

The letter, written by California Log Cabin Republicans Vice Chairman and Huntsman campaign employee Charles T. Moran, states plainly that Huntsman “signed into law Utah’s first Civil Unions legislation” — a simplistic declaration that could easily mislead voters into believing Huntsman actually signed legislation to legalize civil unions in Utah:

On the domestic front, and as it specifically pertains to our greater LGBT community, Governor and Mrs. Huntsman are particularly supportive of our issues. Governor Huntsman signed into law Utah’s first Civil Unions legislation – a politically courageous move on his part given that state’s politics.

In 2008, Huntsman signed legislation expanding domestic partner benefits for Utah’s unmarried couples, including gays. But legislation legalizing civil unions never passed, making it impossible for Huntsman to sign it into law. And while he supported expanding hospital visitation rights and other “contractual” rights for gay couples, most of those initiatives died in the state Legislature.

Huntsman has consistently supported civil unions, and as he recently told ThinkProgress, he intends to continue supporting them despite the fact that it may hurt him with social conservative voters. Now that he is officially in the race, he is the most inclusive of the Republican candidates when it comes to reaching out to conservative LGBT groups. It is unfortunate, then, that his campaign feels the need to exaggerate his experience and mislead voters on the issue.

A new study today confirms not only the personal benefits of being able to come out, but the economic benefits as well. According to the Center for Work-Life Policy, LGBT employees “who are out flourish at work, while those who are in the closet languish or leave.” This has huge implications for employers, because the study also found that LGBT employees are highly desirable workers, but almost half of them (48 percent) are closeted.

Here are some of the study’s findings:

- DESIRABLE WORK FORCE: As a group, LGBT employees are the kind of workers employers should want:

- 71 percent are “ambitious.”
- 88 percent are “committed” and “willing to go the extra mile for employers.”
- 48 percent have graduate degrees (compared to 40 percent of their straight counterparts).

-  CLOSET IS STIFLING: Of those in the closet:

- 52 percent feel stalled in their careers (compared to only 36 percent of those out).
- Only 48 percent feel satisfied with their rate of advancement (compared to 64 percent of those out). They are significantly less likely to achieve senior management positions.
- They are 73 percent more likely to say they’ll leave their companies within the next three years.
- They are 75 percent more likely to feel isolated at work; even moreso if they are men.
- They are more likely to perceive the work environment as hostile and 40 percent less likely to trust their employer.

- MONEY TO BE LOST: Studies show the LGBT community’s collective buying power in the U.S. is over $700 billion.

A similar report this week from the University of Rochester shows that LGBT people who are out are generally happier and healthier. Employers should consider how their commitment to an inclusive workplace influences the caliber of employee they are able to recruit and retain.

New York Senator Greg Ball (R) appeared on CNN yesterday to discuss the state’s same-sex marriage bill and his push to include provisions that would exempt religious organizations and persons from recognizing marriage equality. But when pressed on whether he would support the bill if Democrats met his demands, Ball remained noncommittal saying only, “without religious protections, I would be an absolute no.” Watch it:

Meanwhile, Jeremy Hooper predicts that “Those advocating against *CIVIL* marriage equality will not accept religious protections. Ever, by their own admission. The organized opposition doesn’t want these concessions. Not really. And this is largely because they know that their “religious freedom” canards are nothing more than talking points designed to derail equality for same-sex couples (in full), with almost all of the supposed horribles that they throw out (adoption, public schooling, accommodation, etc.) really involving the non-discrimination burdens placed on organizations that accept government monies, not marriage rights in particular.”