A Williams Institute meta-analysis report (PDF) shows that LGBT people regularly face discrimination in the workplace, which leads to various negative impacts. Here are some important findings from the study:

- SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION: Among lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents, 27 percent faced discrimination based on their sexual orientation over a five-year period. Rates were higher for those were out, with 38 percent facing either harassment or job loss.

- SELF-CLOSETING: Only 25 percent of LGB respondents were out to all of their coworkers. (Another study found that those who were closeted were more likely to “languish or leave“.)

- GENDER IDENTITY DISCRIMINATION: As recently as 2011, 78 percent of transgender respondents have faced some form of workplace harassment or mistreatment based on their gender identity. Similarly high results were found in state-specific studies in California in 2009 (70 percent) and in Utah in 2010 (67 percent).

- WAGE GAP: Gay men consistently earn significantly less than heterosexual men.

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Large percentages of the transgender population are unemployed or have incomes far below the national average.

- NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discrimination, fear of discrimination, and concealing one’s identity can have negative impacts on mental and physical health, productivity in the workplace, and job satisfaction.

At a campaign stop in Ankeny, Iowa, Rick Santorum reiterated his criticism of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for saying he was “fine” with New York enacting a same-sex marriage law and pledged to personally fight for its repeal. “I am not, as some in this race have said, OK with New York doing what they’re doing. What New York did was wrong. I will oppose it and I will go to New York, if necessary, to help overturn it,” he said. He also predicted that marriage equality would undermine “every traditional value in this country” and said that the nation has fought wars to protect that idea.

Listen:

New York, unlike other states, doesn’t have a referendum process by which laws can be overturned, thus requiring opponents to lobby the legislature to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and then convincing a majority of New York voters to approve it.

This week, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), issued a statement defending GOP presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty for suggesting that sexual orientation is a choice. Echoing what Marcus Bachmann said about his Christian counseling clinics, NARTH essentially blames the victims of harmful ex-gay therapy by standing up for their right to pursue it (and misspells Michele Bachmann’s name in the process):

In the past week presidential candidate Congresswoman Michelle Bachman has been attacked because her husband, psychologist Marcus Bachman, allegedly does “reparative therapy” for those who come to his Christian counseling clinic seeking assistance with unwanted homosexuality.  Almost simultaneously former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was asked in an interview if he thought homosexuality was a choice. Both campaigns reacted with statements that mirror information familiar to NARTH members and supporters. In short, they responded that counseling clients have a right to seek assistance for their unwanted homosexual attractions and science does not support the “born that way” mantra used to promote the gay political agenda.

NARTH goes on to say, “Ethical therapists support their clients in achieving their stated goals, including goals to move beyond a homosexual orientation.”

NARTH is wrong on all accounts. While clients certainly have a right to whatever they want, it is a compromise of psychological standards to reinforce the idea that they should not want same-sex attractions. The American Psychological Association recognizes that sexual orientation has been proven to have biological components and that the appropriate therapeutic response is to affirm same-sex attractions so as to dispel the stigma that might make them “unwanted.” Ex-gay therapy has never been scientifically proven to work, and studies indicate that it can actually be quite psychologically harmful. Supporting clients’ goals to “move beyond a homosexual orientation” is disingenuous and anything but ethical.

Posing as a professional organization, NARTH is merely a collective of therapists who casually ignore all research that contradicts their belief that sexual orientation can be changed. Many use faith-based counseling and work with ex-gay ministries such as Exodus International. Their work has been repudiated by major professional organizations such as the APA.

The Department of Health and Human Services has released a document laying out the “four final areas for additional study” before the government can reverse the 1983 ban prohibiting men who have had sex with men since 1977 from donating blood. Responding to a request from Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), HHS identified the following areas of research:

– How the risk of blood transmissible diseases in the current donor population relate to risk factors in donors;

– The root cause of Quarantine Release Errors (QRE), the accidental release of blood not cleared for use;

– If potential donors correctly understand the current questionnaire and if men who have sex with men (MSM) would comply with modified deferral criteria; AND

– If alternative screening strategy (e.g. pre- and/or post-qualifying donation infectious disease testing) for MSM (and potentially other high-risk donors) would assure blood safety while enabling collection of data that could demonstrate safe blood collection from a subset of MSM or other currently deferred donors.

The Food and Drug Administration reviewed the ban — in place since 1983 and a relic of the HIV/AIDS epidemic — last year and voted to preserve it, despite overwhelming support from the medical community for eliminating the policy. American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, American Association of Blood Banks, American Medical Association, and a coalition of other organizations argue that advancements in HIV/AIDS detection — now possible nine to 11 days after contact — have significantly lowered the risk of passing along infected blood and made a lifetime ban unnecessary. They also point to the nation’s low blood supply as a reason to expand donor eligibility.

The policy itself is discriminatory. As Slate’s William Saletan put it, “Maybe you fooled around with a guy 30 years ago and have spent the rest of your life as a celibate priest. Maybe you’ve been in a faithful same-sex marriage for 40 years. Maybe you’ve passed an HIV test. It doesn’t matter. You can’t give blood, because you’re in the wrong ‘group.’ On the other hand, if you’re in the right group—heterosexuals—you can give blood despite dangerous behavior. If you had sex with a prostitute, an IV drug user, and an HIV-positive opposite-sex partner 13 months ago, you’re good to go.”

In upholding the ban last year, the FDA promised to reverse itself “if given data that show doing so wouldn’t pose a ‘significant and preventable‘ risk to blood recipients.”

Adam Serwer pointed out yesterday that Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) recent comments about being “fine” with New York’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage should not obscure his long-standing anti-gay track record:

At a campaign rally in 2010, Perry declared, “Would you rather live in a state like this, or in a state where a man can marry a man?” [...]

Perry also supports Texas’ anti-sodomy law, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. Perry also appears to oppose anti-discrimination protections for gays and lesbians — Perry defended the Boy Scouts for excluding gay scoutmasters in his 2008 book because “precious few parents enroll their boys in the Scouts to get a crash course in sexual orientation.” A 2009 GOP Primary robocall complained that the president had signed a hate-crimes bill making “homosexuality a protected class.” Ironic, considering Perry signed a similar bill ten years ago.

It’s a fair point, but there is also some indication that Perry may understand the futility of opposing the growing tide towards marriage equality better than most conservative activists. His federalist position may appeal to moderate voters, as Serwer suggests, but it is also in line with his belief that same-sex marriage is in many ways inevitable. As he writes in his book Fed Up: Our Fight to Save America From Washington:

Gay marriage will soon be the policy of the United States, irrespective of federalism, the Constitution, or the wish of the American people. Not because it is actually protected in the Constitution, but because judges will declare it so. [Pg. 110]

Meanwhile, Perry aides are reassuring conservatives that the governor still opposes same-sex marriage. “Nothing has changed with the governor’s philosophy here,” Mark Miner, a spokesman for Perry, told the Statesman, “confirming Perry’s support of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman…the Texas Defense of Marriage Act and a state constitutional amendment defining traditional marriage.”

Earlier this month, after an undercover investigation confirmed that Marcus Bachmann’s Christian counseling clinics performed ex-gay therapy, Michele Bachmann was asked about the practice by Iowa’s WQAD, a local ABC affiliate. The Congresswoman refused to comment on the matter, saying only that she is “very proud of our business” and “proud of all job creators in the United States.”

During the interview, Bachmann’s advisers reportedly “threatened WQAD producers that they would cut off the feed if Rae Chelle [the anchor] repeated the question.” On Sunday, the Bachmann campaign “openly, and aggressively denied News 8 access to the Iowa Republican front-runner” as retribution against the station for asking Bachmann about reparative therapy. The campaign also abruptly ended an interview when a different station asked about the counseling centers:

At Sunday’s Davenport fundraiser was our first chance to interview Bachmann since the satellite interview incident. All Quad Cities media were invited to attend and promised a one-on-one interview during the evening. While our competitors were accommodated, WQAD was blocked and denied. “One of her staffers said, ‘due to the interview last week WQAD would not have an interview.’ He said we would have to get our audio from a pool camera. … Then the same man came over and said I could have my interview outside,” said Chuck McClurg a veteran News 8 photojournalist. [...]

McClurg continued to shoot the event. Afterwards, he walked with the Congresswoman and her team down the stairs and out the door.

“I followed them outside hoping to get the interview I was promised,” said McClurg McClurg began rolling his camera as another local Quad Cities news station started asking their questions.

“I started to tape something off of that interview and a staffer pushed me aside and stood in front of my camera and said that this was for the other station only.” The reporter asked a question about Bachmann’s clinic and her husband. At that point, McClurg says the staffer took the microphone off of Bachmann, tossed it to the reporter and said their interview was over.

Since the undercover report, Marcus Bachmann has admitted that the clinic would perform reparative therapy upon request. In 2004, Michele Bachmann spoke before an ex-gay group in Minnesota, claiming that they will “present the truth about homosexuality.”